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

[Imaro]

Don't recall either getting access to healing spells. Really, though, it's all classes all the time, since everyone can buy a healer's kit and thereby just crush the niche protections. Just crush.

But, that aside, you've done a bit of goal post shifting here. I was responding to the niche protection argument, and showing that that niche is so broad that it's pretty much baseline, but you've responded with a different argument about resources invested. However, the question asked in the OP is parallel to something that requires no real investment at all -- a healer's kit, or multiple feats, or a cantrip. The difference is that the fighter has to attempt the effort with no guarantee of result -- all of the responses allowing it have failure as a possibility, while the others are fiat abilities that just work without risk of failure. Buy a healers kit -- works. Use the Healer feat -- works. Use a cantrip -- works. Use a higher level resource -- works and better.

Then do this... We keep claiming it's so easy with a healer's kit (costs money, can be taken away and has limited uses) or Healer feat (Significant investment in resources and still also requires a healer's kit to do anything with) or a cantrip (Significant investment either class wise or feat wise)... and this is without getting into the narrative implications around anyone being able to mumble a prayer and it works. If these are such easy, convenient ways to achieve this effect... then let the fighter use one of these means at his disposal. That's what I'm not getting... There's all these other supposedly less costly, more sure ways to do this... Why without some kind of supporting context should we allow another that could potentially lead to escalating attempts at other abilities?

You're claiming that a mere chance as something that another class can do with a minimal resource without risk is somehow so terrible that it risks unbalancing the resource game and the niche protections. I just don't see it. You clearly have no issue with the fighter's shtick of melee or ranged combat being totally shared out, often better, to other classes.

The fact is the game lays out a way for this fighter to do this thing, 2 out of the 3 you listed are as available to him as anyone else... so why (again without some kind of supporting context) am I allowing another that at least narratively steps on the toes of the divine characters but also creates truths in the game that affect their characters more than his once it's settled. A world where prayers said by anyone can be answered has much more impact on the play of a cleric or paladin in a D&D game then the fighter.

It's replicated by a host of other classes and things. And they're fiat abilities for those characters -- they get to do them and have the work. The fighter trying to declare as you posit here, is not guaranteed anything even if the attempt is allowed. You're arguing against the chance, and assuming that allowing the chance means parity. I'm not sure where you get that from.

You still haven't given a reason why this is better or even equal to having the fighter use those available means...

 

[Imaro]

I'm telling you, if the fighter wants to cast spells, let him do it one time and then have him take his next level in sorcerer. Let's you sidestep the training issue.

This I like... or at the least the Magic Initiate feat when he gets his next feat... But this is adding context and consistency that is lacking in the OP.

 

[Imaro]

Niche protection is an ill that is independent from class-based games.

So did you dislike the roles of 4e? Striker, Controller, Defender and Healer? And I don't think anyone is claiming it is dependent on a class-based game... but they certainly seem to be designed to enforce it to varying degrees while skill-based games tend to be much looser.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This I like... or at the least the Magic Initiate feat when he gets his next feat... But this is adding context and consistency that is lacking in the OP.

I imagine the initial fireball as a flare-up from awakened powers. To do it consistently, you need to develop your burgeoning abilities.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So did you dislike the roles of 4e? Striker, Controller, Defender and Healer?

The way I see it; a strong design goal is not the same as niche protection.

Taking a character type and saying 'this is what they're good at' is not the same as saying '...and they are the only ones who get to be good at it'.

When I talk about niche protection, I'm talking about the old dumb Rogue Trapfinding and 'Arcane can't heal' stuff. I'm wary of the D&Done caster lists, for example.

And I don't think anyone is claiming it is dependent on a class-based game... but they certainly seem to be designed to enforce it to varying degrees while skill-based games tend to be much looser.

They were implying that all class-based games have niche protections. When many are, in fact well-designed.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Niche protection is an ill that is independent from class-based games.

What you think is the purpose of classes?

 

[Vaalingrade]

What you think is the purpose of classes?

See post above.

Having niches is not the same as niche protection.

 

[Voadam]

However, the question asked in the OP is parallel to something that requires no real investment at all -- a healer's kit, or multiple feats, or a cantrip. The difference is that the fighter has to attempt the effort with no guarantee of result -- all of the responses allowing it have failure as a possibility, while the others are fiat abilities that just work without risk of failure. Buy a healers kit -- works. Use the Healer feat -- works. Use a cantrip -- works. Use a higher level resource -- works and better.

That doesn't seem an accurate summary.

The OP posits a fighter simply praying to the gods for healing with a dying friend and asks how a DM would handle it. Not specifically for stabilization, which the fighter can do with the explicit mechanic of a medicine check. Divine intervention healing is not limited to stabilization. The 2e FR god books have examples of big time divine intervention healing. An answered prayer for healing could be stabilization but could be a lot more.

If you are going for a religion check to stabilize though there seem more relevant mechanics to compare it to than cantrips or healing kits. The relevant comparison of a not explicit use of a religion check for stabilization seems to be the explicit mechanic of the medicine check for stabilization.

What skill checks do you expect a religion check to be able to substitute for? You can pray in a lot of situations.

 

[Umbran]

The problem is that setting limitations are being painted as badwrongfun in this thread by a certain contingent of posters... which is par for the course in particular threads where a small but "LIKE" happy group of posters who are very ingrained in their way of doing things and are unwilling to acknowledge the validity of other playstyles, ways of running the game, etc. but also claim it is their style of play being attacked eventually get what they want as people drift away from the thread and it becomes an echo chamber (YAY!!) or it gets closed down because of the vitriol going back and forth.

Mod Note:
Ah, so, dismissing other opinions by lumping them together in an unnamed group, and dismissing them as a general class. Classic.

And, really, not any better than what you're claiming They (whoever They are) do.

So, how about we dial down the conflict rhetoric about seven notches, please and thanks.

That goes for everybody, by the way. To quote Agent J: Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'.

 

[Ovi]

Then do this... We keep claiming it's so easy with a healer's kit (costs money, can be taken away and has limited uses) or Healer feat (Significant investment in resources and still also requires a healer's kit to do anything with) or a cantrip (Significant investment either class wise or feat wise)... and this is without getting into the narrative implications around anyone being able to mumble a prayer and it works. If these are such easy, convenient ways to achieve this effect... then let the fighter use one of these means at his disposal. That's what I'm not getting... There's all these other supposedly less costly, more sure ways to do this... Why without some kind of supporting context should we allow another that could potentially lead to escalating attempts at other abilities?

All of those reward the investment with guaranteed functionality. You don't need to ask the GM or get some cost at the time of usage, you deploy the ability and it work. That's the benefit for the investment. We're going to have to disagree on what qualifies as "significant" for investments. All of the things you list as "significant" investments (other than the healer's kit which I'll just straight disagree is a significant investment or risk) come with other features that also justify the investment -- we aren't talking about just getting this, but getting multiple things for that investment.

The fact is the game lays out a way for this fighter to do this thing, 2 out of the 3 you listed are as available to him as anyone else... so why (again without some kind of supporting context) am I allowing another that at least narratively steps on the toes of the divine characters but also creates truths in the game that affect their characters more than his once it's settled. A world where prayers said by anyone can be answered has much more impact on the play of a cleric or paladin in a D&D game then the fighter.

The game also lays out that the GM can determine that the fighter praying to heal an ally without deployment of an established fiat ability can also be done. This argument is that the play cannot diverge from whatever buttons the character sheet provides. I'm not actually contesting your desire to not allow it -- you're perfectly good in that interpretation. I'm poking at the justifications your providing for doing so because they're not very solid -- niche isn't really a strong concept at all in 5e and 'investment' doesn't hold much water either. You can just say you don't like allowing things ad hoc, and that's perfectly reasonable as an opinion.

You still haven't given a reason why this is better or even equal to having the fighter use those available means...

I'm not arguing that it is. That's going to be something tables prefer. I'd like it at my table as a GM because it gives an awesome lever on play because I can establish costs and see if the player is willing to pay them and what that means for the character. I like that stuff a lot and that's how my play looks these days. As little as 7 years ago, though, and I'd have been firmly on your side of this argument. I've changed my mind. Allowing it is now better for me, but I'd never claim it's better in any objective manner. It's different, and I happen to have come around to liking that difference.