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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Careful, you might ruin someone's picture with facts.

This sort of thing is a huge part of why I fell in love with 4e, and why I was (and am) so infuriated when people claim it's antagonistic to improvisation and roleplay. The game bends over backwards to support every possible creative use of its mechanics, in a way neither 3e nor 5e does. Yet because it's the "balanced" edition, everyone sees it as a ridiculously draconian straightjacket that never allows ANYTHING other than rigidly-defined, pre-existing behaviors.

Quite possibly. Or maybe they do, but live by the adage, "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."?

In this context, I'm not sure how that would even be possible.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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?"

Improvised actions many a time (at least at my table) lead to house rules to be made so although in the moment I may rule one way, I prefer to do the homework between the sessions and come up with a house rule on the improvised action that works for all and my players know this and I also stipulate it during the ruling of the improvised action that I may change how such action is resolved in the future.

 

[FrogReaver]

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?

Great Question.

The simple answer is it depends on the entire context of the game up to that point. How much sense does it make in the genre and setting being played in? Does saying this is possible mean your players will always attempt it from here on? Will there be any consequences or bargains needed before the gods heal their friend?

My personal solution would be no DC but a major sacrifice. Something along the lines of sell all that you have, donate it to my temple and go there to serve me the rest of your days. Another good option would be to request the player perform some task for the god like retrieving the macguffin and returning it to the gods temple (could be a quest hook).

*If I gave my players access to the gods answering their prayers on a straight DC they would always seek that out as an option and that wouldn't jive with the genre or setting I would be going for.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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?

How would you rule if a cleric tried to cast magic missile having seen the party wizard cast it? OR
The wizard digging into his reserves to bolster himself (essentially Second Wind)? OR
The fighter picking up the holy symbol of the fallen cleric in an attempt to turn undead? OR
The bard attempting to lose himself in the blood-lust (essentially Rage)? OR
The druid donning heavy armour and casting druidic spells?

You don't have to answer these...but you can see where players can take it...
That is why it makes it so divisive. Really, I'm not sure why this is a surprise to anyone in a game with Classes.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

@pemerton If the Fighter player did some cool role playing and did some neat prayer to a god I'd give him inspiration on his medicine check to stabilize the other character. Divine Inspiration. It probably wouldn't be a roll at all to get access to the inspiration.

 

[Imaro]

*If I gave my players access to the gods answering their prayers on a straight DC they would always seek that out as an option and that wouldn't jive with the genre or setting I would be going for.

For me I believe some of my players those with the most experience playing D&D would seek to do this (which is what I alluded to earlier in the thread) not only causing a mis-alignment of genre and tone but (at least until they also started doing it) an imbalance of power/spotlight with the newer players I have in the group.

 

[pemerton]

Correct, or at least not in a way that's measurable.

If farmers are praying for a good harvest, and the harvest turns out to be good, that might be the result of the god of agriculture hearing their prayer. Or maybe the weather was just right that year. Who's to say?

And if a friend is bleeding out, and you try to staunch their bleeding while praying to the god of healers, and you succeed... was that the result of your own medical skill or the god of healers guiding your hand? Is there even a difference? Hard to say. But you definitely won't have the wounds miraculously close as the result of your prayer.

To me, this seems hard to distinguish from an atheistic world (I would include REH's Hyborian Age in that category).

It doesn't fit with the default presentation of D&D worlds, with active gods who take an intense interest in mortal affairs.

 

[Baron Opal II]

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).

Okay, I think you are stretching the definition of "Divine Intervention" so broadly as to encompass anything that mimics a clerical spell or effect. Simply drawing upon the Divine power source is not a standard definition of "Divine Intervention". That is calling upon the deity or force to directly intercede in an otherwise unscripted manner. (c.f. Divine intervention in the Cleric class in 5e)

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."

True, hit points just measure how long a character can act / fight. "Restoring resolve" through use of the Religion skill alone is a tortuous connection, but one you can do at your table.

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.

True.

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:

None of these are divine intervention, they're explicitly powers.
If they are mundane powers, they are especially not divine intervention by definition. It's mundane.

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).

Specific powers are not divine intervention any more than a cleric's at-will.

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.

Excellent.

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.

Ad hoc use of Religion skill, very nice- a good replacement for a last rites / burial ceremony. Not divine intervention.

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

Not divine intervention.

So, what is divine intervention?

Divine Intervention
Beginning at 10th level, you can call on your deity to intervene on your behalf when your need is great.

Imploring your deity's aid requires you to use your Action. Describe the assistance you seek, and roll percentile dice. If you roll a number equal to or lower than your Cleric level, your deity intervenes. The DM chooses the Nature of the intervention; the Effect of any Cleric spell or Cleric domain spell would be appropriate. If your deity intervenes, you can't use this feature again for 7 days. Otherwise, you can use it again after you finish a Long Rest.

...The forces of good might send some powerful creature of like alignment to aid characters on a mission in their behalf. Certainly in the case of some contest between opposing deities all sorts of intervention will take place - but always so as not to cause the deities themselves to be forced into direct confrontation! ...

In most cases, therefore, you will have to determine the involvement of deities as you develop the scenario or series of scenarios of your campaign… Spur of the moment intervention can be handled as follows: If the character beseeching help has been exemplary in faithfulness… (the actual rules follow, describing the chance of direct aid.)

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.

No harm indeed, and no offense taken. However, you have yet to describe Divine Intervention in the ruleset. Divine Intervention being the player character beseeching direct aid from the divine. Using a daily power is using a daily power; the main characteristic of Divine Intervention is the adjustable and variable nature of the boon, as well as being outside the usual scope of the character's abilities. I own every version of D&D, and looked through the 4e PHB thoroughly before my previous post. There are no statements on direct intervention. Maybe there is something in the DMG I missed. I am happy to be corrected, simply cite the page for my edification.

Tell me what the specific rules are in 4e for invoking the aid of deity to solve a variable problem at hand, similar in effect to a limited wish, wish, or miracle. That is what I provided for AD&D and 5e, above. These are not simply customary powers with flavor text. Now if you want to define Divine Intervention in 4e as anything unexpected, be my guest. It's incorrect, but at your table you can rule as you wish.

None of this contradicts my statement that the OP's valid question is one of state of play rather than rules of play. The minutia of specific rule sets are of little import, especially since this is a general D&D thread.

 

[Imaro]

@Manbearcat & @pemerton (or anyone else who is familiar with 4e) in an effort to avoid mis-characterizing 4e I'll ask as opposed to drawing off my admittedly spotty recollection of 4e... but what was the default in 4e when it came to divine powers and their relationship to actual deities? I want to say that the precedent was set that one didn't really need the favor of their deity once divine power was granted (thought this may have only been in the paladin's case) in order to use said power... am I remembering this correctly ?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, I answered the question as I would run it at my table in my post following the one you quoted. As for the whole “dissociated mechanics” thing, it’s nonsense that was made up to rag on 4e. I never had a problem with AEDU, I actually think it was a great system and it’s a shame WotC ditched it. Anyway, if gods definitively exist and intervene directly with mortals (not true of all 1st party D&D settings by the way, let alone all home campaigns), that doesn’t guarantee they will intervene to help any random fighter whenever he prays to them. I think a DM is 100% justified in ruling that this action has no reasonable chance of success and therefore not call for a roll.

Disassociated mechanics is not nonsense, it's a perspective that you don't happen to share.