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

[Micah Sweet]

More accurately "I wouldn't allow it"

It is entirely possible to play a Grung character. Some DMs may not allow it. That doesn't make it impossible, it just means they won't allow it. Semantics, but important when we are discussing things like whether or not it is possible in a DnD world for divine magic to be called by someone who does not usually call upon divine magic.

To be fair, there are rules for grung characters (which I'm fine with by the way).

 

[pemerton]

what would be the problem with applying page 42 (improvised actions) to carrying out activities that are essentially rituals? Wouldn't the people in a campaign world call those 'rituals'?

The invoker/wizard in my game does. And his player takes the +2 bonus from a ritual buffing feat when he makes the check for them!

 

[pemerton]

A character might be called a 'Paladin' fictionally, but that is not the same thing as being 'a PC who is a member of the Paladin class'.

Eg some might be (in mechanical terms) fighter/clerics, like the fighter/cleric in my long-running 4e game - who I typically described as a paladin until he became a god instead (taking on the mantle of imprisonment and punishment, some time after he and his friends killed Torog).

 

[Voadam]

Well, 4e doesn't really spell all this out in any detail. While rituals don't have keywords associating them to power sources, they DO seem to be associated with specific skills which usually identify them with a power source in a loose way. I mean, MOST rituals you could say "yeah, that's a Primal/Arcane/Divine ritual" and there are clearly power-source-associated ritual components as well.

I agree.

Whether they are typed magic or untyped magic I don't think really matters one way or the other here though. They are magic that require specific prerequisites and not everybody can do.

But beyond that... what would be the problem with applying page 42 (improvised actions) to carrying out activities that are essentially rituals?

4e DMG page 42 for "actions the rules don't cover" is sort of begging the question here.

Page 42: "Cast the Action as a Check: If a character tries an action that might fail, use a check to resolve it."

The instruction that if you think it is possible but they might fail use a check does not tell us to use a check for something that cannot happen.

Whether people can carry out activities that are essentially ritual magic without meeting the requirements of ritual magic (ritual caster feat or expending one shot ritual scroll and specific level, check, and component requirements of the ritual) is more a world question about magic in the world and how a PC can access it.

Wouldn't the people in a campaign world call those 'rituals'?

If they worked and looked like rituals that did magic, sure, observing characters in the world would likely think of them as ritual magic.

For instance, in my game once a Wizard wanted to poison a bunch of Jermlaine who infested the air ducts of an ancient dwarven city. So, she undertook a Skill Challenge in which she used Arcane ritual components to cast her Stinking Cloud daily in such a way that it filled the ducts with a poisonous fog which killed most of the Jermlaine. I'm entirely certain the other characters called it a 'ritual'. I agree that it was mechanically handled as an SC, but I think that's just a reflection of the fact that carrying it out, without a formula, was unusually difficult. While it never came up I would have probably let the character experiment with the technique for a while and produced a standardized ritual formula for it.

So, certainly if we are discussing 4e, questions of what is and isn't magic vs mundane or if something is a ritual or 'something else' are really pretty gamist. Narratively its all 'doing magicky stuff'.

I wouldn't say everything in 4e is doing magicky stuff. The 4e arcana skill can explicitly be used to manipulate magic. Other skills do not explicitly say they can be used to manipulate magic on their own.

A prayer that does magical effects is doing magicky stuff. If a prayer on its own can not do magical effects it is not doing magicky stuff, it is just a prayer.

5e has a different baseline for magic. 5e arcana skill does not explicitly allow you to manipulate magic.

3e knowledge arcana and spellcraft skills did not explicitly allow magical effects on their own.

AD&D had a few divine intervention mechanics and narrative elements spelled out. Some settings had specific supernatural rules anyone can tap as well (Ravenloft with curses and dark powers checks).

I don't recall any relevant examples from Basic.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Whether they are typed magic or untyped magic I don't think really matters one way or the other here. They are magic that require specific prerequisites and not everybody can do.

4e DMG page 42 for "actions the rules don't cover" is sort of begging the question here.

Page 42: "Cast the Action as a Check: If a character tries an action that might fail, use a check to resolve it."

The instruction that if you think it is possible but they might fail use a check does not tell us to use a check for something that cannot happen.

Whether people can carry out activities that are essentially ritual magic without meeting the requirements of ritual magic (ritual caster feat or expending one shot ritual scroll and specific level, check, and component requirements of the ritual) is more a world question about magic in the world and how a PC can access it.


If they worked and looked like rituals that did magic, sure, observing characters in the world would likely think of them as ritual magic.

I wouldn't say everything in 4e is doing magicky stuff. The 4e arcana skill can explicitly be used to manipulate magic. Other skills do not explicitly say they can be used to manipulate magic on their own.

A prayer that does magical effects is doing magicky stuff. If a prayer on its own can not do magical effects it is not doing magicky stuff, it is just a prayer.

5e has a different baseline for magic. 5e arcana skill does not explicitly allow you to manipulate magic.

3e knowledge arcana and spellcraft skills did not explicitly allow magical effects on their own.

AD&D had a few divine intervention mechanics and narrative elements spelled out. Some settings had specific supernatural rules anyone can tap as well (Ravenloft with curses and dark powers checks).

I don't recall any relevant examples from Basic.

Well, I think you can guess how I think about this. If one person performs certain actions and they result in certain outcomes, then I would very much expect that another person, carrying out the same actions, would get the same results. I don't think you need to accept that any certain specific things fall into the category of being fundamentally the same, but if you take that principle generally then we see the various spell casting and ritual magic mechanics as simply modeling expertise and preparation, but not necessarily absolute rules about what is or is not theoretically possible.

 

[pemerton]

Whether people can carry out activities that are essentially ritual magic without meeting the requirements of ritual magic (ritual caster feat or expending one shot ritual scroll and specific level, check, and component requirements of the ritual) is more a world question about magic in the world and how a PC can access it.

Given that an example of doing just that is listed under "Improvising with Arcana" in the RC, and the number of published skill challenges, hazards etc that contemplate much the same, I think it's pretty clear what the design intention is.

4e flourishes when gonzo improvisation is encouraged. That's why the DMG tells GMs "Try not to say no."

 

[Andvari]

Depends on the situation. Generally, I would not set a DC, deeming the task impossible. Either the gods do not hear it or their answer "no", which in either case to the fighter is perceived as silence, leaving him to wonder which.

If the fighter or the victim is a follower of a specific deity and is known for deeds done in that deity's name, and other ways of healing their ally aren't viable, then I think a good case can be made for allowing the possibility.

The difficulty would depend on how much the deity might feel it "owes" the fighter or the victim, and whether the deity has already repaid such favors. It could range between low chance of success and automatic success.

 

[pemerton]

If the fighter or the victim is a follower of a specific deity and is known for deeds done in that deity's name, and other ways of healing their ally aren't viable, then I think a good case can be made for allowing the possibility.

The difficulty would depend on how much the deity might feel it "owes" the fighter or the victim, and whether the deity has already repaid such favors. It could range between low chance of success and automatic success.

Wouldn't setting a DC and then having a roll made determine the bolded bit? If the check fails, the deity didn't feel it owed much (or anything); if the check succeeds, the deity feels that it did.

 

[Andvari]

Wouldn't setting a DC and then having a roll made determine the bolded bit? If the check fails, the deity didn't feel it owed much (or anything); if the check succeeds, the deity feels that it did.

I would let the fighter's past deeds in service to the deity determine that. Those wouldn't change based on a die roll.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I disagree. It isn't that simple at all. For instance Basic Attacks and ED powers have NO power source at all. So you can be quite good at using weapons without using any Martial Power.

Literally anyone or anything can make a 'basic attack'. A child can do it. A housecat can do it. They don't have to be 'quite good'.

PHB P54 describes Martial powers as "us[ing] their own strength and willpower to vanquish enemies" and being accessed through "training and dedication". It does say that Martial powers are not "magic in the traditional sense", but they are definitely not a catchall for 'mundane stuff'. I would argue they are actually much closer to what far eastern fantasy would call 'qi' (and this is probably one reason why the Ki power source was dropped from the game before it was introduced, its just Martial power).

Qi is an actual martial concept based on focus and muscle memory that is exagerated by pop culture. So yes, Qi is a good descriptor for NOT MAGIC.

Nor do the actual powers and abilities attributed to the Martial power source allow us to take this position. Warlords produce healing effects just as potent as those of clerics.

Heck, PHB152, Warlord Daily Exploit Defy Death, you literally snatch your ally from the very jaws of death and he gets to spend a healing surge. Its literally the codification of the situation that @pemerton's OP lays out, and its a Martial Exploit (granted its a level 29 Daily).

There it is! One of the classics.!

'Shouting arms back on'.

No. Full stop. No. What is happening here is rousing the other person to continue the fight, not inserting new meat points into their corpse. It is not magical. It is not closing wounds. And the assertions that they are need to be buried in a shallow grave next to a septic tank unknown and unmourned.