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

[beancounter]

The gods generally dont directly involve themselves in mortal affairs unless the person in question is vital to their grand plan.

Even if they only responded to 10 percent of mortal prayers, they would be as busy as a switchboard operator.

I would have the player role five d20s. The god will intervene if the player rolls all 20s. Four 20s if the player is over 15th level.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Some feel its inauthentic and trying to cheat the system. I generally feel its a fine approach. Whatcha gonna do?

Say something like "I'm okay with it, but other people might not be." instead of talking in circles trying to cover every possible answer every possible person may have

Yet you presented that as the binary options.

Disallowing anything happening in response to the prayer is easy. Allowing it opens up all sorts of nonbinary options of how to resolve the attempt, to what effect (stabilizing, a couple hp, a full heal), what cost, is it repeatable, who answers, how does it manifest.

That could have something to do with how disallowing it stops the conversation ("No" is pretty final) and allowing it leads to details.

But I'll note the OP never asked "and how many hp do they recover?" It was was far more "Do you allow it, if it is a skill, what is the DC?" But I don't think anyone expects us to have all the little details worked out. We don't need to discuss which god answers, because that is impossible to decide without first deciding which gods exist.

One thing I will address is that it seems like the repeatable aspect is a major sticking point for some people, and a lot of the other side have been confused on why it is even an issue. One time miracles are a pretty common trope, there is no reason to disallow this simply because you don't want it to be repeated.

I am saying there are multiple valid options that lead to different game experiences that can be fun game experiences. I am not advocating that any of them is the way things should be. I am against one true wayism.

I have my preferred option which I stated in my first response in this thread, but I think others are reasonable and can be within the normal parameters of the freedom that D&D gives on how D&D worlds work.

Your One True Balance is noted, but no one in this entire thread is going for a One True Wayism, and frankly the implication is a little insulting. You gave your answer, and I said "cool".

What is annoying me is you are treating this like some deep mystery, some unknowable problem. Like, if the OP had asked, "My fighter saw the Five Armies movie and wants to shoot his sword with a bow like Legolas did, how would you adjudicate that? Would you allow it?" And you just keep repeating "There are many ways you could go, and they are all valid options"

Yeah, we get that. That's why it is a question worth asking. If there was only one possible answer, like for example if the question was "My fighter wants to attack an enemy with their sword, what do I do?" then most DMs wouldn't even bother asking. Stating the obvious doesn't help us have the discussion. Yes, many DMs will rule in many various ways. We get that. We've been in these discussions before. That doesn't tell us anything.

Because I believe we are talking about D&D and D&D is open to a lot of options that involve a lot of consideration. Again I am not advocating that one way is best. I legitimately feel there are multiple fun valid different ways to approach this stuff in the game.

I have never claimed that one way is best either. You can step down from your podium now, we all know that everyone's way is valid and no one has the best answer.

That doesn't mean we can't advocate for our favorite options. That doesn't mean we can't discuss the options. I legitmately feel that discussion would be more interesting than just repeating the facts we already know.

I have not gotten the same impression of Eberron stuff that you have.

Eberron clerics seem to be a magical spellcasting tradition that taps divine power. I don't read it as belief powering clerics.

From the 3.5 Eberron Campaign Setting book pages 34-35 on clerics as a class.

"Other clerics across Eberron serve no church and claim no allegiance to any deity. They recognize the power of the deities, but not their authority over mortal life. They hold principles of alignment or other abstract ideals higher than the deities who claim these ideals in their portfolios, and they draw divine power from the pervasive spiritual force in the world instead of channeling it through deities. These clerics are usually outcasts and loners, but the reality of their power is impossible to deny, and it lends credence to their unorthodox theology."

I don't take that as belief powering divine magic here, rather just not getting power from a god.

I don't expect Eberron non-clerics to pray and get cleric equivalent magical effects. Do you know of examples where people with straight up faith do stuff without say the trained spellcasting tradition of clerics or a specific feat? Clerics can clearly believe most anything and still do cleric stuff, but that seems more consistent with the class and not the belief being the operating factor.

Also there is the whole discussion about corrupt clerics keeping their powers on pages 35-36.

"A cleric who violates the tenets of her church or deity might risk punishment at the hands of the church (though not necessarily, particularly in regions where the church is very corrupt), but risks no loss of spells or class features and need not atone. This rule supersedes the information under Ex-Clerics on page 33 of the Player’s Handbook."

This seems to suggest that clerics who don't believe but are putting on a mummery of faith would still cast clerical magic.

I do like that Faiths of Eberron says up front that "This book presents religious information through the eyes of believers, often stating as fact events that more properly belong in myth or legend."

I have not read a ton of Eberron. I have skimmed a bunch and like a lot of it, and played in the setting and adopted a bunch of elements into my homebrew setting, but most of my knowledge is high vantage point stuff. The stuff I have read though gives me a different sense than you seem to have on belief and magical effects in the system.

I am open to seeing specifics that point a different direction though if you can point them out.

I'm running late for work, so I can't go into my books with deep detail. The 5e books present a lot of similar ideas, but there are a few things specifically that stood out to me.

The Undying Court is explicitly said to be powered by their followers. The faith and love of the elves for their ancestors is what gives those ancestors the power to act on a god-like status.

The Thrane, home of the Silver Flame, is said to have the greatest number of paladins and clerics because of the deep faith of the populace.

As for specific examples, in Exploring Eberron Baker's 3rd party supplement for 5e, he talks about a common legend on pg 51 about an old smith who claimed Dol Arrah and Boldrei empowered him to smite down bandits who attacked his village, then died soon after. He also says that any player character with faith could temporarily receive a boon tied to a specific purpose or quest, then lose that power when the quest is complete.

Reading through another section quickly, this book is where I feel it is spelled out the most clearly. So, Kanon I guess.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There was a reason why I told you that I do not expect you to answer each and every one of those examples.
My post was about realising the endless improvised actions that may now come into play once you open that door where Class loses some of it niche.
Some DMs might have an issue with it, some not.
The point was not how easy it was for you. The point was to understand how others may not like it.

Just think on the entire multi-class issue where someone dips their toes into 1 level of another class and now has access to everything of the other class. People took issue with it. Now you're saying you don't even need to level dip.

It has nothing to do with how creative Chaosmancer is at the improvisational action table.

Fair enough, but if you don't allow improvisational actions then the game quickly becomes stale, because there are very few skills that have extensive lists of fully defined actions they can do. This is the advantage of a DM over a computer, we can handle the improvisation of actions.

And classes may get a little blurrier but A) They already do once you allow feats and multi-classing and B) Classes aren't super neccessary anyways. The vast majority of NPCs and Monsters don't use them. They are convenient suites of abilities, not proscribed reality. Hence why some monsters take parts of classes but not all of the class abilities. They don't cover all possibilities.

 

[Imaro]

'What difference is there in the magic being in a rite, like prayer, that your perform correctly... and praying to call magic that comes from the gods?

This reads to me like saying you can't harness lightning, you can only manipulate electrical fields created by the flowing of electrons. I don't see the difference.

IMO...its akin to claiming there's a precedent for improvised casting of arcane magic because you can hit something with a magic sword, or don a magic cloak or set off/disable a magical trap. As I said earlier it is ultimately up to the DM but trying to claim 4e handles this in a vastly different way than every other edition of D&D rings false to me.

 

[Voadam]

I'm running late for work, so I can't go into my books with deep detail. The 5e books present a lot of similar ideas, but there are a few things specifically that stood out to me.

The Undying Court is explicitly said to be powered by their followers. The faith and love of the elves for their ancestors is what gives those ancestors the power to act on a god-like status.

The Thrane, home of the Silver Flame, is said to have the greatest number of paladins and clerics because of the deep faith of the populace.

As for specific examples, in Exploring Eberron Baker's 3rd party supplement for 5e, he talks about a common legend on pg 51 about an old smith who claimed Dol Arrah and Boldrei empowered him to smite down bandits who attacked his village, then died soon after. He also says that any player character with faith could temporarily receive a boon tied to a specific purpose or quest, then lose that power when the quest is complete.

Reading through another section quickly, this book is where I feel it is spelled out the most clearly. So, Kanon I guess.

I am most familiar with the 3e stuff and I don't have the 5e DM's Guild book. The boons thing you cite out of that one is probably the strongest example if the only factors are faith and magical boon.

In the 3e core book The undying explanation is more qualified in places. Page 218 for example says "The elves believe that it is the devotion of the family that preserves the spirits of the undying. As a result, an elf is expected to be deeply familiar with the lives of his undying ancestors, and to show respect to all of the undying."

Other references can be taken as less qualified page 216: "In the center of the island-continent lies a region where necromantic energy flows easily, and it was here that the elf Priests of Transition discovered the rites and rituals required to preserve their elders beyond death. Sustained by the veneration of their descendants, these undying elves have guided their country for more than twenty thousand years." Although that sounds like it could be more tied to the specific magic used by the priests of transition and to the nature of the Undying than to the power of faith or belief on its own in the world.

 

[Baron Opal II]

@Manbearcat gave multiple examples of powers that lack the divine keyword, that are described in their flavour text as prayers, that are linked (in build terms) to the Religion skill, and that allow restoration of hit points or improve saving throws. But you assert these have no relevance to the scenario in the OP?

None what so ever.

The situation implies being in extremis. If the fighter is just going to use a power they already have, then they just do that. There's no discussion required. Your question asks, at least implicitly, how people would run a situation when the customary resources are expended.

Whether or not certain powers are tied to the divine, and an apparently variable definition of "divine intervention", are distractors to the question you posed.

 

[Umbran]

Is this a 4e thread? It seemed like a general question from the OP.

It's D&D general.

Well, then folks really should be general about it. Page after page of this has been 4e-specific. If it doesn't shift back to actually being general, it is apt to be moved to the Older Editions forum.

 

[Chaosmancer]

IMO...its akin to claiming there's a precedent for improvised casting of arcane magic because you can hit something with a magic sword, or don a magic cloak or set off/disable a magical trap. As I said earlier it is ultimately up to the DM but trying to claim 4e handles this in a vastly different way than every other edition of D&D rings false to me.

That's.... not the argument at all? In anyway?

Using a magic weapon has nothing to do with casting arcane magic. A wolf can grab a magic weapon in its jaws and swing it around, using the magic weapon. Won't be using it effectively, but will totally be doing that. Utilizing Arcane magic would be something like creating a magical trap, or creating a magical item, or performing a magical ritual.

The 4e examples were EXPLICITLY non-magical. The Faith Healing one is a perfect example, it is a skill power. The only requirement was being trained in Religion. No ritual books, no spellcasting, no divine favor. The equivalent in 5e would just be having proficiency in Religion. And the effect is that the ally can spend a healing surge. Which is exactly what the cleric's divine magic does anyways.

This is a pure example of praying giving a tangible result, with no divine power needed before hand, no magic being needed. If you know religion, you can heal with just prayers to the gods.

I do sort of allow similar things with Arcana as well. If someone who was not a ritual caster and not a spellcaster wanted to create a magical circle that gathered arcane energy... that makes perfect sense to me. They can't direct the energy. They don't have a personal collection of that energy inside of them, but if they know how the stuff works, they can essentially create a magical sink that collects that ambient magical energy. There is no reason that prayer can't work the same way. Praying to the gods and faith in the gods is what (in most DnD depitions) powers the gods. Therefore, it makes sense that you could do the EXACT SAME THING and gather some of that power for a purpose. And 4e took that idea and ran with it, giving some minor healing, some ability to turn undead, even to increase attacks and defenses. All through nothing but prayer.

I do agree, 5e doesn't say that the Religion skill does this anymore, and 4e ALSO needed you to take the appropriate powers, locking you out of other powers, but that was because they were reliably repeatable. You can't give new abilities at zero cost without upsetting the balance somewhere. But for one-off miracles? For things that aren't abilities but closer to charming someone with persuasion or using Nature/Survival to create camouflage? Then this fits perfectly fine

 

[Chaosmancer]

I am most familiar with the 3e stuff and I don't have the 5e DM's Guild book. The boons thing you cite out of that one is probably the strongest example if the only factors are faith and magical boon.

In the 3e core book The undying explanation is more qualified in places. Page 218 for example says "The elves believe that it is the devotion of the family that preserves the spirits of the undying. As a result, an elf is expected to be deeply familiar with the lives of his undying ancestors, and to show respect to all of the undying."

Other references can be taken as less qualified page 216: "In the center of the island-continent lies a region where necromantic energy flows easily, and it was here that the elf Priests of Transition discovered the rites and rituals required to preserve their elders beyond death. Sustained by the veneration of their descendants, these undying elves have guided their country for more than twenty thousand years." Although that sounds like it could be more tied to the specific magic used by the priests of transition and to the nature of the Undying than to the power of faith or belief on its own in the world.

And I think that is very intentional. Eberron wants it to be a question. Are these the workings of Gods, or simply the faith of men?

But I think for it to be a question in the setting, it has to be capable of working both ways. I think that is why in 5e it was presented both ways. There are the gods and they do stuff. But other people don't believe the gods are real (or that they are actively malicious), and they can do the same stuff because they believe in themselves. Both sides say the other is delusional, and that what is really happening is their version of events.

To keep the mystery and keep the flavor, you have to allow both to happen and both to feel real, otherwise it ends up being a bit "People don't know the answer, but here is the right answer" which is completely against Eberron's philosophy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And I think that is very intentional. Eberron wants it to be a question. Are these the workings of Gods, or simply the faith of men?

But I think for it to be a question in the setting, it has to be capable of working both ways. I think that is why in 5e it was presented both ways. There are the gods and they do stuff. But other people don't believe the gods are real (or that they are actively malicious), and they can do the same stuff because they believe in themselves. Both sides say the other is delusional, and that what is really happening is their version of events.

To keep the mystery and keep the flavor, you have to allow both to happen and both to feel real, otherwise it ends up being a bit "People don't know the answer, but here is the right answer" which is completely against Eberron's philosophy.

It already is like that. If the powers work without faith in the gods, then the gods aren't necessary for "divine" magic. On the other hand, D&D is explicitly set in the Multiverse, and most of the Multiverse is full of gods, so gods definitely exist. There's zero mystery about either question.