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

[Umbran]

Completely missing the point of the discussion. Strike One!

Mod Note:
You cannot be both the opposing team and the umpire, you know.

I suggest you step away from the metaphor of this being a competition with winners and losers and scoring. Because that will generally escalate conflict.

But, I tire of your chicanery.

See, conflict escalated!

If you tire of someone's posts, next time just walk away, please.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The Eldritch Knight learned magic well.
The Battlemaster did not learn magic well, they learned it poorly.

My last PC was a battlemaster who's battle prowess was acquired by reading a magical book of fighting techniques.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You did if you wanted to fly the space shuttle, or is that not a space craft?

To fly it legally, sure. To be physically capable of flying it? Nope. You could never have gotten your pilot's license and still be capable of flying the craft. These are different criteria.

Never said that.

But that is how you are reacting to my posts. So, if you understand that there is a vast difference in the process, then it should be easier to see how one doesn't step on the toes of the other.

Just because I give someone a golf cart, doesn't mean the Formula-One car is being stepped on.

I have a doctorate in a medical field. I am wholly unqualified to operate on someone and would only do harm.

OKay. See above. You are acting like "Fighter spends an hour, mutliple HD, and casts fireball" is completely identical to "Wizard spends seconds, and a spell slot, and casts fireball" Otherwise, your claim about surgery is nonsense.

No, of course not. Theory, however, is not practice.

Well, I can tell you that's inaccurate. Seminary studies tend to have only cursory knowledge of other religions. The religion the seminarian is studying is, naturally, the focus.

That's why I added the "and" They went to Seminary (has the focus on their particular religion) AND has a working knowledge of other religions. If I felt that it was only one of them, I wouldn't have used "and"

I understand that, and what house rules you are proposing. I'm stating that it is not, nor is it even implied that what you are saying is a natural standard of play.

It isn't even a houserule. It isn't that formalized. It is an adjudication. The "natural standards of play" are the supporting aspects that led to me making that houserule.

Like DnD being commonly in a world with interventionist gods. Like DnD portraying Arcane magic as being gained purely through stufy. That is the supporting evidence that I am using for my adjudication, not the fact that I made the call I did.

And people have said they wouldn't make the same call, which I have been fine with. The only think I argue is that they declare things like "magic cannot be learned through study" or "The gods will never answer prayers unless you are a cleric or paladin" that massively impact the game in ways I don't think they consider in their rush to prevent a fighter from doing the things being asked.

I'm arguing your supporting evidence, not your ruling.

I understand that perfectly fine, and it's a house rule that I don't adopt because it doesn't fit the theme of my game. Why can't you understand that?

If you don't want to do it, just rule against it. But your attacks on my supporting reasoning are bordering on nonsensical, because you are rejecting core principles of the DnD standard setting. Or you make analogies that make no sense. So there seems to be something you are not perfectly understanding

It does not fit the standard narrative. They are no more arbitrary that what you have decided.

Turning all wizards into warlocks or all wizards into sorcerers is far more arbitrary and bizarre than allowing Arcane magic to be gained through study, like it is always presented as. Making Clerics and other divinely touched people the only spellcasters is neat, but far from how the world's of DnD are presented, what with Arcane and Divine magic being separated.

Maybe Fireball is too far for some people, but that was the question asked, so that was the question answered.

I do. Oh, "blood, sweat, and tears" is an expression for expending significant effort.
Warlocks are those who don't have an innate talent for magic and look for a shortcut, btw.

That shortcut being the same pacts and deals that those with an innate talent for magic are forced to undergo? I think you through out so much chaff, you've lost your own way.

I don't, and likewise for your house rules.

I've never once claimed you should use my ruling. Make your own. You seem utterly offended by that, but that's been my position this entire time.

 

[Chaosmancer]

My last PC was a battlemaster who's battle prowess was acquired by reading a magical book of fighting techniques.

That's cool

 

[Baron Opal II]

OKay. See above. You are acting like "Fighter spends an hour, mutliple HD, and casts fireball" is completely identical to "Wizard spends seconds, and a spell slot, and casts fireball" Otherwise, your claim about surgery is nonsense.
...
It isn't even a houserule. It isn't that formalized. It is an adjudication. The "natural standards of play" are the supporting aspects that led to me making that houserule.

It is not identical. There is one key commonality- the access to magical power. Fighters don't have it without some mechanical cost. Simply being knowledgeable is insufficient, both according to the rules and the standard game fiction.

In what way is "Fighter spends an hour, multiple HD, and casts fireball" not a house rule? You contradict yourself.

If you don't want to do it, just rule against it. But your attacks on my supporting reasoning are bordering on nonsensical, because you are rejecting core principles of the DnD standard setting.

Straight fighters being able to cast spells just because they want to is not supported by the core rules or principles of the setting.

I've never once claimed you should use my ruling. Make your own. You seem utterly offended by that, but that's been my position this entire time.

The only thing that bothers me about it is your insistence that this is anything other than your preference. Which is fine for your game! Mine, obviously, differ.

Which must be a "someone is wrong on the internet" thing. Such trivialities don't usually stick in my craw.

Enjoy your game!

 

[Staffan]

So how do Wizards do magic if they cannot learn it?

Are all wizards born with magic (ie, every wizard is a sorcerer)?
Do all wizards need to make a pact with some entity (ie, every wizard is a warlock)?
Do all wizards need to be blessed by the Gods of Magic (ie, every wizard is a cleric)?

If studying magic isn't enough to be a wizard, then what is a wizard?

The thing is that Arcana (in 5e) isn't the same as magic practice. It is all the stuff around the magic.

I can know everything there is to know about the history of major battles, great generals of the past and present, the capabilities of various weaponry and how to recognize different types of military vehicles and so on. None of that is going to help me put a sword or bullet through the other guy. It might help me get in a position to do that, but not with the act itself.

Edit: By the way, fighters generally DO study things like military history. I doubt you'd find many HEMA enthusiasts who don't study the history of fighting. And the ones who are usually the best are either very athletically gifted or have done a ton of research because this is their passion.

And fighters are not just "I farmr. I pick up shiny stick! I hit you!" They are the most highly trained soldiers, masters of every weapon and technique in existence. They know a lot about military history I'd bet.

Military history is certainly useful for war, but not for the fighting itself. Just like Arcana is useful for recognizing that a diagram on the floor is a protective circle, and might help in drawing one, but it won't let you actually summon something inside it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It is not identical. There is one key commonality- the access to magical power. Fighters don't have it without some mechanical cost. Simply being knowledgeable is insufficient, both according to the rules and the standard game fiction.

And, again, this is where you seem to misunderstand the standard fiction. DnD is so magical that it has background radiation of magic. EVERYONE has "access" to magical power. That's why anyone can cast a ritual, they need the knowledge of how (hence Ritual Caster) but getting ritual caster doesn't give you "access" to magical power. It just exists in the world.

People generally don't like this, and generally want to make magic rarer, but that is not how DnD is presented.

In what way is "Fighter spends an hour, multiple HD, and casts fireball" not a house rule? You contradict yourself.

Because if it was a houserule, then it would start by me saying "Okay group, in my game you can do X,Y,Z"

This is an adjudication. The fighter declared an action, and I ruled on how that would resolve. This would be like saying that a fighter pulling on the curtains could make an attack to grapple is a houserule, when in reality, what happened was the fighter wanted to grapple someone and declared an action they felt would do that.

There is no contradiction.

Straight fighters being able to cast spells just because they want to is not supported by the core rules or principles of the setting.

You are right, it isn't because they want to.

It is because they are experts in magical theory and have access to the magical formula, and attempted to cast it via a long and drawn out process. That isn't "because they want to" and is supported by the fact that wizard magic is 100% learned, it requires no special "access" that any normal person lacks. Everyone can do magic in DnD if they spend the time learning.

The only thing that bothers me about it is your insistence that this is anything other than your preference. Which is fine for your game! Mine, obviously, differ.

Which must be a "someone is wrong on the internet" thing. Such trivialities don't usually stick in my craw.

Enjoy your game!

I hope you enjoy your games as well.

But the reason I don't see this as a "preference" is because the standard DnD world is much different than most people consider it. And this is a prime example, just like the physical capabilities of most characters.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The thing is that Arcana (in 5e) isn't the same as magic practice. It is all the stuff around the magic.

I can know everything there is to know about the history of major battles, great generals of the past and present, the capabilities of various weaponry and how to recognize different types of military vehicles and so on. None of that is going to help me put a sword or bullet through the other guy. It might help me get in a position to do that, but not with the act itself.

That is because you are comparing military history to the act of one on one duels, or general fighting. I know I mentioned it, but I was going in reverse. Taking an expert in combat and giving them knowledge of the things related to combat.

Let's take a more clear example. Let us say you know all the things around chemistry. You know everything there is to know about various elements, compounds, the equipment, the history of medication and chemical science, how reactions occur and the math behind it all.

Would that help you design a chemical compound? I think so, you know everything that you need to know to do so. Chemistry is just book learning after all, same as wizard magic.

Military history is certainly useful for war, but not for the fighting itself. Just like Arcana is useful for recognizing that a diagram on the floor is a protective circle, and might help in drawing one, but it won't let you actually summon something inside it.

Why not? If you have the creature's name, and you have properly created the circle, why do you need some sort of "special stuff" to summon something? I know the summoning spells are generally higher level, but you also have cultists who do not have magic who summon demons all the time because summoning demons is HOW they get magic. If they had magic, they wouldn't have needed to summon a demon to get magic.

 

[Staffan]

That is because you are comparing military history to the act of one on one duels, or general fighting. I know I mentioned it, but I was going in reverse. Taking an expert in combat and giving them knowledge of the things related to combat.

It is often useful for a warrior to know tactics and the history of war. But the latter does not lead to the former.

Let's take a more clear example. Let us say you know all the things around chemistry. You know everything there is to know about various elements, compounds, the equipment, the history of medication and chemical science, how reactions occur and the math behind it all.

Would that help you design a chemical compound? I think so, you know everything that you need to know to do so. Chemistry is just book learning after all, same as wizard magic.

Chemistry is different, because chemistry is essentially nothing but knowledge, and applying it is mostly a matter of resources. But that's not how spellcasting works in 5e. Magic, even wizard magic, isn't just book training. It includes mental exercises in preparing spells, and for holding the energy needed to power those spells, and how to project that energy properly. Spellcasting requires some form of specific training or innate ability – not necessarily as holistic as class levels, as you have more limited options available (e.g. various racial abilities, feats like Magic Initiate or Spell Sniper, or Ritual Caster). But still something more than a skill proficiency.

Also, skill proficiencies in 5e by themselves only act as modifiers to ability checks. There's nothing you can do with an Arcana check that you couldn't do with an Intelligence check (unless you count weird edge cases like Charisma (Arcana) to impress someone with your magical nerdery). Letting skill proficiencies provide other benefits is usually also the domain of feats.

A better example than chemistry would be cars. The history/theory of cars is distinct both from the ability to build/repair cars, and from the ability to drive them. Knowing the first Ferrari-badged car was built in 1947 isn't going to help me win a Formula 1 race, either as a pit crew member or as a driver.

Why not? If you have the creature's name, and you have properly created the circle, why do you need some sort of "special stuff" to summon something? I know the summoning spells are generally higher level, but you also have cultists who do not have magic who summon demons all the time because summoning demons is HOW they get magic. If they had magic, they wouldn't have needed to summon a demon to get magic.

You generally need special locations and/or ingredients to summon things without spells. That's basically a magic item.

But I don't think we're getting anywhere by throwing examples at one another anymore.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It is often useful for a warrior to know tactics and the history of war. But the latter does not lead to the former.

Except in DnD, it likely does.

Take Xanathar's tool rules. Proficiency in an instrument doesn't lead to more than playing it right? But it also applies to knowing things about the history of the instrument. Brewer's Supplies leads to knowing things about historical events that "involve alcohol as a significant element". Cobbler's tools leads you to the history of footwear. Cooking allows you access to social patterns around any culture's eating habits.

Proficiency is BROAD, which I think most people don't realize.

Chemistry is different, because chemistry is essentially nothing but knowledge, and applying it is mostly a matter of resources. But that's not how spellcasting works in 5e. Magic, even wizard magic, isn't just book training. It includes mental exercises in preparing spells, and for holding the energy needed to power those spells, and how to project that energy properly. Spellcasting requires some form of specific training or innate ability – not necessarily as holistic as class levels, as you have more limited options available (e.g. various racial abilities, feats like Magic Initiate or Spell Sniper, or Ritual Caster). But still something more than a skill proficiency.

Also, skill proficiencies in 5e by themselves only act as modifiers to ability checks. There's nothing you can do with an Arcana check that you couldn't do with an Intelligence check (unless you count weird edge cases like Charisma (Arcana) to impress someone with your magical nerdery). Letting skill proficiencies provide other benefits is usually also the domain of feats.

A better example than chemistry would be cars. The history/theory of cars is distinct both from the ability to build/repair cars, and from the ability to drive them. Knowing the first Ferrari-badged car was built in 1947 isn't going to help me win a Formula 1 race, either as a pit crew member or as a driver.

I won't deny that I am going slightly beyond what a pure skill check is presented as. However, all you've described with "mental exercises" and "holding and releasing energy" is time and practice. Which in the chemistry example could be applied to actually doing the act of chemistry, which with older tools involved a lot of guessing and experience to do properly.

And the fighter in this example does like the training and experience, hence why their effort is far greater and doing so poorly has harmed them. I'm in the realm of the possible here, because feats represent learning how to do something properly and repeatedly. A feat doesn't allow you to try and cast a cantrip at-will, a feat says you can do that. But skills and magic cannot be on/off switches in the world of DnD. There have to be failed spellcasters, people who have failed to cast a cantrip, but still performed some magic. Because it is a skill that is taught, and therefore it has to have a middle ground between "impossible" and "mastered"

You generally need special locations and/or ingredients to summon things without spells. That's basically a magic item.

But I don't think we're getting anywhere by throwing examples at one another anymore.

But "basically a magic item" applies to all rituals if you assume ingredients are needed. Heck, it applies to almost all spellcasting, since almost all spells need ingredients to function in the form of components.