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

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).

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.
Sigh Let me try and avoid another round of 4e edition war bait... and actually address the question this thread poses and my position which you seem to have missed. I'll summarize so there's no more misunderstanding or unintentional mis-representations of my view...

1. It is a DM's call....
2. Context is key and there is none so I am taking a cautiously restrictive view until the OP deigns to fill in some details around the presented situation.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sigh Let me try and avoid another round of 4e edition war bait... and actually address the question this thread poses and my position which you seem to have missed. I'll summarize so there's no more misunderstanding or unintentional mis-representations of my view...

1. It is a DM's call....
2. Context is key and there is none so I am taking a cautiously restrictive view until the OP deigns to fill in some details around the presented situation.

Wait.

There is no misunderstanding here.

I’m not engaging with your general claim (I’ve already engaged with that claim many times over). I’m engaging with your specific claim here:

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.

I didn’t see it earlier because I’m just scanning. I finished my post > saw pemerton’s post with your quote > thought to myself “Woah…that claim is weird considering how much Imaro and I used to go back and fourth on the virtues of improv and how he felt 4e’s improv engine wasn’t sufficient to the task and the game actively harmed improv” > looked up your exchange with ER to ensure I had your claim correct.

That is my thinking and the continuity of my thoughts. That particular claim in isolation and in context with your past position on the virtues of improv.

Now if your thoughts have evolved since then…cool. That happens. I’m assuming your thoughts on the matter have evolved?
 

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.
I'm trying to relate these two paragraphs: the first refers to a certain sort of fiction ("supernatural" actions) and the second relates that to the mechanics.

As I understand it, the idea is that the world-building inherent in the mechanics entails the following principle of action resolution: if your fictional positioning involves the supernatural, then the only permissible action declarations are the tightly mechanically circumscribed ones set out in the PC build rules.

I don't quite get it. I don't think it's true in 4e D&D, for instance, because the 4e RC includes this on p 134, under the description of the Arcana skill: "A creature can sometimes use its knowledge of magic to interact with or manipulate magical phenomena." And this idea is built upon on p 136, which under the head "Improvisation with Arcana" lists "Control a phenomenon by manipulating its magical energy (hard DC)"; and also by the many examples of skill challenge set-ups which suggest Arcana as a skill for interacting with, manipulating or controlling a magical phenomenon. And this all hangs together: there is nothing in the way 4e presents PC build or its general resolution rules (which include the skill rules) that suggests any sort of boundary line between the resolution process when the fiction involves the supernatural, and when it doesn't.

I don't know 5e as well. But the 5e Basic PDF does open with this:

The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery. It shares elements with childhood games of make-believe. Like those games, D&D is driven by imagination. It’s about picturing the towering castle beneath the stormy night sky and imagining how a fantasy adventurer might react to the challenges that scene presents. . . .

Unlike a game of make-believe, D&D gives structure to the stories, a way of determining the consequences of the adventurers’ action. Players roll dice to resolve whether their attacks hit or miss or whether their adventurers can scale a cliff, roll away from the strike of a magical lightning bolt, or pull off some other dangerous task. Anything is possible, but the dice make some outcomes more probable than others.​

The "anything" that is possible isn't expressly limited to that which is not supernatural in the fiction. The section on ability checks (p 58) says that

An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.​

In the default world of 5e D&D, praying for divine aid seems like the sort of thing that might have an uncertain outcome.

And when it comes to mechanics, there is no quarantining of character-building elements to the supernatural. Eg Battlemasters are built to include abilities that aren't supernatural - but it seems to be widely accepted that a PC doesn't need to have the Battlemaster class abilities in order to do things like disarm a foe.

Do the 5e rulebooks contain a statement of a rule or a principle that makes the issue - and in particular, the strictness of the mechanical parameters in relation to the supernatural - clearer?

EDIT: @Voadam, I think the above also responds to your post. 4e Religion skill does include knowledge of gods and of ceremonies, and under "Improvising with Religion" (RC p 152) includes "Preside over a known religious ceremony (moderate DC)". Presumably in the world of D&D religious ceremonies produce discernible supernatural effects! And of course the whole point of those improvisation lists is that they are suggestive, not prescriptive.

In 5e I agree that rather than a WIS (Religion) check, a CHA (Religion) check might make more sense in the context of the OP, as it is more about religious passion than religious knowledge.
 
Last edited:

Wait.

There is no misunderstanding here.

I’m not engaging with your general claim (I’ve already engaged with that claim many times over). I’m engaging with your specific claim here:



I didn’t see it earlier because I’m just scanning. I finished my post > saw pemerton’s post with your quote > thought to myself “Woah…that claim is weird considering how much Imaro and I used to go back and fourth on the virtues of improv and how he felt 4e’s improv engine wasn’t sufficient to the task and the game actively harmed improv” > looked up your exchange with ER to ensure I had your claim correct.

That is my thinking and the continuity of my thoughts. That particular claim in isolation and in context with your past position on the virtues of improv.

Now if your thoughts have evolved since then…cool. That happens. I’m assuming your thoughts on the matter have evolved?
You're taking a post and disregarding the context by extrapolating it out of the specific circumstance I'm addressing into a general idea... I can't address a mis-representation of my position, especially after correcting it, so maybe we should move on from this particular point of discussion...
 

That seems an unwarranted assumption to me. For an open ended hypothetical I think it is best to not assume only one interpretation. I think it makes more sense to discuss the multiple possible things that could be going on.

Except the other interpretation is inherently toxic. It becomes trying to "cheat" the system, and thus gets ruled harshly against.

It is far more neutral to actually assume the fighter is making a genuine attempt, because then the question is entirely on the mechanics and the story, not "is this player trying to cheat me".

I am not sure what you mean here. Presumably they do different things.

Sure, they do different things. But so do Athletics and Intimidation, yet it is perfectly coherent to roll athletics to intimidate someone. Rolling history in an ancient castle is equally coherent to rolling investigation to find a secret door. Survival and Nature could both be used to find a Dyrad's secret grove.

And to the game engine, a skill proficiency is a skill proficiency is a skill proficiency. They are completely equal.

My proposal is that there are tons of options for a DM to go with. No cost, trivial cost, balanced cost, high cost, rewarding the character, punishing the character.

Also we don't know the cause of the dying companion, maybe the fighter was possessed and dropped their companion or used a stick of dynamite or whatever that caught their companion in its blast.

I mean, that list of proposed options is basically saying "this is an event in the game". Sure, you can do anything in theory. But I don't punish players for having fun and making dramatic story moments, so it would be a bizarre choice.

Would the cause of the dying companion really make any difference?

Without reason?

My hypothetical is a fighter who plans to multiclass into paladin and has this situation where they pray for their companion as roleplaying part of that transition. This fighter who gets a divine intervention answer to their prayer is not incurring a cost compared to the situation where the fighter's prayer is not answered and they multiclasses into paladin (either figuring the stabilization roll was the gods answering his prayer, or that they need to dedicate their self to the gods so they can divinely heal future dying people, or becoming an anti-theist vengeance paladin who resents the gods who did not answer their prayers to heal their companion).

I am not suggesting any must here.

But you seem to be missing my point. Why would there be a high cost to begin with? You seem to be taking a stance of "The DM will decide and I will make no statement beyond that." Which.. really makes it difficult to discuss with you, because obviously the DM is making a decision, but the discussion is about why they make the decision they make. What drives that decision?


We don't even know from the given hypothetical whether combat is ongoing. Their is no opportunity cost of giving up attacking an enemy if there is no enemy to attack. The combat could be over, this could be death from a trap or a disease or whatever.

Would that make a difference? We don't upgrade the DC of medicine checks outside of combat. Why would the ruling on this prayer be made more difficult outside of combat?

Again, this is about the WHY of the decision, not which decision is correct.

I disagree, I think the question is what do you want to happen?

Better question "What does the player want to happen?"

I'm the DM, I didn't tell the fighter to start praying. They made that decision and they felt it was a good call. Maybe this is a joke campaign and they are being silly. Maybe this is a grim-dark campaign and they expect the character to die in their arms. Maybe this is a game world where the gods constantly interfere in the lives of heroes, and they expect an answer to their prayers.

What I want is the same thing I always want, to make the best story possible. And sometimes that means stepping beyond "that is the wrong action declaration" and instead looking at the story being built here.

Could be. This is going to vary dramatically by context. If the gods are the Cthulhu mythos or the Melnibonean Lords of Chaos then any prayer and divine intervention could fairly risk resulting in a catastrophic result. If drawing on the power of the gods is dangerous or capricious (or is so for those doing so without the proper preparation or investiture or whatever) then I would not say it would be categorically unfair.

And how many DnD campaigns is that the case?

Honestly, I get that this isn't a universal "this must be one way" but in a Mythos world no player is going to pray to Cthulhu to save their friend, except as a dark villain "this is how we fall" moment. But you keep taking the context out of traditional DnD, and I'm not sure why we need to go far afield to every possible game world to discuss this. Exceptions exist. In the land where the gods are dead and their corpses litter the ground, praying to them doesn't work. Agreed. Normal DnD games aren't like that.

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

Okay, but here is the question.

Why?

Divine Powers heal. Praying over the wounded to heal them is a common fantasy scene in games, literature and art. So what makes this so out there?

I know you later said you could reskin the mechanics, but your first instinct is "it's impossible, those are the wrong mechanics" and that reaction is where I think the interesting discussion lies. Because that was my first knee-jerk reaction too. But why? What makes this so divisive?
 

Better question "What does the player want to happen?"

I'm the DM, I didn't tell the fighter to start praying. They made that decision and they felt it was a good call. Maybe this is a joke campaign and they are being silly. Maybe this is a grim-dark campaign and they expect the character to die in their arms. Maybe this is a game world where the gods constantly interfere in the lives of heroes, and they expect an answer to their prayers.
This except... we have no context for this question... so either we are all making different declarations off what we would do based on individual and varying assumptions about this missing context. Or we are falling back entirely on mechanics because we have no context and no fiction to guide us. If we are really trying to get at the heart of how someone would rule and why they would rule that way on this then, IMO, those details need to be provided or context set.
 

Divine Powers heal. Praying over the wounded to heal them is a common fantasy scene in games, literature and art. So what makes this so out there?

I know you later said you could reskin the mechanics, but your first instinct is "it's impossible, those are the wrong mechanics" and that reaction is where I think the interesting discussion lies. Because that was my first knee-jerk reaction too. But why? What makes this so divisive?
Because it is wholly undefined. The only mechanic we have in 5e for Divine Intervention is solely in the cleric's domain. So, be default, the fighter in question can't. In 4e Divine Intervention is undefined as well, there isn't a mechanic for it.* So in 4e the fighter can't either. In AD&D the fighter could, and there is a defined mechanic. Unlikely, but possible.

pemerton gave us two examples of how he steps outside the given ruleset and allowed the action to occur.** It was an ad hoc ruling within the scope of the table's play. And that's fine. The rule set doesn't matter, it is a style of play.

So we circle back again to the question being in regard to style of play not rules of play. The answer to the original question is "Not Applicable - the character and skill are unable to achieve this goal." Could you allow this? Sure, make a rule that allows for such, and adjust the rule as necessary to prevent abuse. Should you allow this? That's for the individual table to decide.

Interestingly to me, the OP and the example are at odds with me. I was thinking of low level characters from the example, because higher level characters would have other options. But, that's me.


*There is a specific level 25 power Divine Intervention; you swap places with your buddy, take the hit, and explode doing lots of damage. Not applicable for our discussion.

** Which had nothing to do with the OP, except as, maybe, a "player-facing" mechanic.
 


Because it is wholly undefined. The only mechanic we have in 5e for Divine Intervention is solely in the cleric's domain. So, be default, the fighter in question can't. In 4e Divine Intervention is undefined as well, there isn't a mechanic for it.* So in 4e the fighter can't either. In AD&D the fighter could, and there is a defined mechanic. Unlikely, but possible.

pemerton gave us two examples of how he steps outside the given ruleset and allowed the action to occur.** It was an ad hoc ruling within the scope of the table's play. And that's fine. The rule set doesn't matter, it is a style of play.

So we circle back again to the question being in regard to style of play not rules of play. The answer to the original question is "Not Applicable - the character and skill are unable to achieve this goal." Could you allow this? Sure, make a rule that allows for such, and adjust the rule as necessary to prevent abuse. Should you allow this? That's for the individual table to decide.

Interestingly to me, the OP and the example are at odds with me. I was thinking of low level characters from the example, because higher level characters would have other options. But, that's me.


*There is a specific level 25 power Divine Intervention; you swap places with your buddy, take the hit, and explode doing lots of damage. Not applicable for our discussion.

** Which had nothing to do with the OP, except as, maybe, a "player-facing" mechanic.

What you're saying here is incorrect. In 4e, a Fighter player can:

* invoke divine intervention.

* it is entirely within the ruleset.

* they don't have to even invest in a multiclass feat for Healing Word to do so (although they can if they like).

1) Hit Points in 4e represent "resolve" among other things. They aren't meat points (nor have they ever been). We know that from dozens of sources. Further, the Religion Skill cites "soothing grief and panic" as but one example of an improvised use. That is "restoring resolve."

2) Religion is the keying skill for Rituals to employ this magic. This is important because (a) you don't have to have Divine keywords to "have the gods hear your pleas and answer them (with all sorts of benedictions and ceremony from the relatively mundane like purification to the sublime like demanding immediate audience and having questions answered with a cosmological power)" and (b) Religion is clearly the skill this keys off of. A Fighter can take Ritualist, pay the cost, make the check and they get the benefit.

3) A Fighter can also take any of the following Religion Skill Powers that do not have the Divine keyword yet clearly invoke divine intercession via mundane (none of these are magic) pleas to gods/belief/hope in some kind of metaphysical aid that are answered:

Faith Healing Religion Utility 2
Your prayers help an ally recover from injury.
Daily ✦ Healing
Standard Action Melee touch
Target: One creature
Effect: The target can spend a healing surge.

Deliverance of Faith Religion Utility 6

You give of yourself in the belief that somewhere, something will give a little back.
Encounter
Minor Action
Personal
Effect
: You spend a healing surge but regain no hit points. You gain temporary hit points equal to your healing surge value.

Conviction Religion Utility 10

You whisper a prayer for aid to overcome hardship.
Encounter
Minor Action
Personal
Effect
: You gain a +5 bonus to the next saving throw you make before the start of your next turn.

Recitation Religion Utility 10

You echo your allies' prayers to give them strength.
DailyZone
Minor Action
Close burst 1
Effect: The burst creates a zone that lasts until the end of your next turn. When you move, the zone moves with you, remaining centered on you. While within the zone, your allies gain a +1 power bonus to attack rolls.
Sustain Minor: The zone persists.

4) A Fighter can take a Character Theme, a Paragon Path, or an Epic Destiny that does the same as above (invokes religious themes with answered prayers and healing/bulwarking but without the Divine Keyword, so mundane prayer, therefore signifying that this character is not a de facto agent of divine sponsorship).

5) The game, at every opportunity, tells the GM to be permissive and gives them an extreme amount of guidance on how to resolve both in-combat stunts using specific skills (like Religion) via DCs/Damage Expressions/Tier-based effects/Costs for failed checks as well as how to resolve Skill Challenge action declarations (like praying for intercession through the use of Religion). Dungeon Magazine has actual examples of this usage in their adventures.

6) Actual DDI Dungeon Magazine adventures show tons of improvised uses of ceremony and invocation of faith/belief-infused prowess like the below:

Religion (Medium DC 16):
By performing the rites that were never received by those who suffered here, the character allows the restless spirits to gain a semblance of peace and end the hatred and fear that powers this place.

7) Terrain Powers and Traps/Hazards in the books explicitly call out the usage of Religion as Countermeasures/Triggering Skills (like so):

Lightning Pillar Strike At-Will Terrain

At your command, lightning lashes out from an ancient stone monolith.
Standard Action
Requirement:
You must be within 5 squares of a lightning pillar.
Check: Arcana, Nature, or Religion check (hard DC) to trigger the pillar's attack.





I don't know how many times I've constructed posts like these in the last 10 years when things like this come up.

No big deal. I'm sure you mean no harm, but you've just got this wrong and its an easy course correction. Please, for my sanity, just upload this information and whenever you see someone in the future making the above claim that you did ("to use Religion in such a way is to go outside of the ruleset/instruction for 4e"), please correct them. Feel free to C/P this post or just give your own abridge version of the correction above.
 
Last edited:


Remove ads

Top