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

[AbdulAlhazred]

Wouldn’t the gods’ willingness to directly intervene on behalf of a lay person who merely prays to them be the thing that requires establishing?

Well, anything that hasn't been established within the fiction and/or the genre (and here I will consider the rule books to be a source of 'genre wisdom') might require establishing. So then we're back to the common debate about who is able to establish things! One answer might be that the player can establish that they are attempting something, and then some mechanics will answer how that works, what it costs, etc. So, for instance in a Dungeon World game the player of the dying PC gets to make the Death's Door move. The 7-9 result (the most likely, NO modifiers are applicable to a DD move) could be construed as Death hearing the fighter's prayers and offering the dying PC some sort of 'bargain' involving his devoted buddy. Said bargain could be reasonably harsh, but it is probably going to be 'fantastic' in nature, and present the PCs with some sort of hard choice, though one that ideally holds within it the seed of some epic story. Note that the GM in DW doesn't get a say as to the availability of DD as a move, nor does he get to veto the player from getting her desired part of the bargain (but it is worded as "death offers you a bargain", so by the same token the player has to either accept it as is, or perhaps make a counter offer, but remember, Death is no pushover).

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, anything that hasn't been established within the fiction and/or the genre (and here I will consider the rule books to be a source of 'genre wisdom') might require establishing. So then we're back to the common debate about who is able to establish things! One answer might be that the player can establish that they are attempting something, and then some mechanics will answer how that works, what it costs, etc.

Well, in D&D 5e, the DM determines the results, possibly calling for a die roll if they determine that the outcome is uncertain; typically, if it could succeed, could fail, and has meaningful stakes. A DM would be well-supported in ruling that praying doesn’t have a chance of succeeding at bringing someone back to life, and therefore not calling for a roll to resolve it, since the outcome isn’t uncertain.

So, for instance in a Dungeon World game the player of the dying PC gets to make the Death's Door move. The 7-9 result (the most likely, NO modifiers are applicable to a DD move) could be construed as Death hearing the fighter's prayers and offering the dying PC some sort of 'bargain' involving his devoted buddy. Said bargain could be reasonably harsh, but it is probably going to be 'fantastic' in nature, and present the PCs with some sort of hard choice, though one that ideally holds within it the seed of some epic story. Note that the GM in DW doesn't get a say as to the availability of DD as a move, nor does he get to veto the player from getting her desired part of the bargain (but it is worded as "death offers you a bargain", so by the same token the player has to either accept it as is, or perhaps make a counter offer, but remember, Death is no pushover).

Ok, but we’re not discussing this in the Dungeon World forums.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But this is exactly what you are opening up once this is allowed, once the fiction is established... if it works... why wouldn't you try it whenever you can?

Because you can't. The gods will not be used as tools. They are persons. How is that a difficult thing?

Why would it be the case that this ever COULD be used constantly? Why would you LET it become an infinitely-repeatable "I win" button? Like...genuinely for real, you have more than enough power to ensure that it doesn't make sense for this to work beyond this first instance. You keep asserting that ti ABSOLUTELY HAS to establish an eternal, always-functional, zero-effort "I Win" button. That assertion is false, and without it, your entire argument collapses.

Don't permit exploitative play. If we are supposed to have such absolute trust and faith and reverence and awe and worship of the almighty, absolute-power, "my word is law" DM, why can't we ask for a little trust in the other direction? Why is it totally unacceptable to be even the tiniest bit distrustful of DM motivations, and yet not merely acceptable but REQUIRED that we must instantly assume the absolute dirt worst possibilities about player motivations?

 

[Staffan]

Note that the GM in DW doesn't get a say as to the availability of DD as a move, nor does he get to veto the player from getting her desired part of the bargain (but it is worded as "death offers you a bargain", so by the same token the player has to either accept it as is, or perhaps make a counter offer, but remember, Death is no pushover).

 

[Manbearcat]

What is "this kind of situation"?

If I have a setting in which the gods do not interfere in such manner, and there's a reason for that, and that fact is woven into its history, to violate that is incoherent. Literally. As in, it is inconsistent with the established fiction. The whole is no longer sticking together. Not cohering. Incoherent.

Similarly, if you are playing in a game set in the Old West, sans supernatural elements, an action declaration of "I teleport three miles out of town to beat the bandits to the Double-Q Ranch," ought to be a non-starter.

If there are literally no bounds on action declaration, you don't have "tactical infinity". You have Calvinball. Tactics is the art of succeeding using the rules and bounds of a situation.

I'm using "In this situation" for the default myth, tropes, and milieu of modern, out-of-the-box D&D. I'm assuming that orientation to setting because that is normative here (and surely because I know that is @pemerton 's orientation to D&D; Greyhawk or 4e's Points of Light). That world is filled with miracles and magic and legend. The idea that a mythical hero crying out for their ally's life to some god (the god of either PC) to spare them and having a moment of grace afforded to them doesn't seem like a stretch to me...it seems right in line. If something like this never happened in the oratory legends of such a place infused with magic and miracles....no Joan of Arc or spontaneous conversions and miracles...just deaf ears and turned eyes by the gods upon all laity saddled with crisis forever...then I would think it particularly odd and sanitized and stifling in its odd rigidity (stifling both for players and stifling for the laity in their belief...no one ever cried out for the life of their child/friend/lover to a god in a moment of grave consequence?). It just seems like a sterile world of LOLMIRACLES governed by the artifice of a class-based system.

However...

* If you're running some kind of alternative like Dark Sun where the myth, tropes, and milieu deviate from the default of modern D&D? Yeah, I would feel differently about this sort of action declaration.

* If the action declaration causes the game engine to buckle? Yeah, I would feel differently about this sort of action declaration.

* If the action declaration is particularly injurious to archetype because of just how potent it is? Yeah, I would feel differently about this sort of action declaration.

But none of those 3 are in play for the default, high fantasy of modern D&D (here I'm pointing at 4e and 5e in particular).

Let me sort of wander through other D&D and see how I feel about this action declaration:

TORCHBEARER (as grim and dark and unforgiving a setting as there can be) - We're in a Kill Conflict and we're at the post-conflict Compromise stage. Given what transpired with party Disposition during the Conflict and Order of Might (meaning, the creature(s) had more Might than the PCs), I have to take the life of at least 1 PC. Lets say I go with 2 of 3 PCs and the 3rd one comes out with only a minor Condition. This can go three ways as I see it:

1) The players beg off of this and see if they can all 3 come out of this alive but with the Injured Condition (a grave condition that puts all 3 on death's doorstep and apt to cross it). We could skin that fiction however we'd like. Perhaps the Valkyrie comes to take them away and the remaining PC begs for the life of his friends...the the Valkyrie refuses but the friend grabs onto the legs of her friends as the Valkyrie begins to ride away, all 3 of them falling back to the earth. The fall breathes life into their breasts but they're all gravely injured.

We've reconfigured the Compensation and new fiction has arisen as a result.

2) The players could opt to spend their one-off Pay the Terrible Price (which lets them defy death but their Nature suffers terribly - Cap down 1 and they start back at 1/1, they are "changed" as they lose one of their descriptors and have a Trait altered, and the Nature change means they learn some terrible things, and gain insight, from the other side - due to the design of the Skill Advancement system, they would learn some Skills). We can skin this however we'd like including the remaining PC beseeching the Valkyrie through ceremony or force of will to release her friends, getting rebuffed, and she ultimately pulls the dead PCs from their place on the back of the Valkyrie's steed, reviving them.

3) After the Kill Conflict things are where they are, but the remaining PC wants to enact a (Last Man Standing) Spiritual Conflict with the Valkyrie when she is about to usher off her friends to the other side. The Valkyrie has Precedence on the PC so there is going to be a Compromise that the PC has to endure even if she wins. We set the stakes and goal going in and run through the Conflict. Maybe somehow the PC wins. It almost surely ends up exactly as (1) above but with a possible prospect of either (a) the PC that pulled them off being dead in their stead (and possibly Paying the Terrible Price - see 2...or riding with the Valkyrie to Valhalla) or (b) the PC that pulled them off merely being Exhausted (a terrible condition but not nearly as bad/dangerous as Injured) with the other two PCs being Injured (in a grave situation).


Whatever way its gone down...its awesome, we've learned a great deal about the PCs and the setting (the legendary few can rebuff or bargain with the Valkyrie though she, or the spiritual process of the bargain/rebuffing, will no doubt exact a grave toll), and it in no way causes the game engine to buckle under the weight of it (in fact, this is by-the-book handling within the game's engine).


DUNGEON WORLD/STONETOP - This would be interacting with the Death's Door mechanics. The only way I would let this happen in these games is the following preconditions:

1) The PC in question has a specific playbook move that lets them make a move to alter the fiction of the dead PC confronting the Black Gates/The Lady of Crows.

Failing that:

2) Their friend, still alive, is near enough to hold them and comfort them in their crossing over. They swear an oath to the dying PC that they will not cross alone. I would let the other PC "go with them" and they could take +1 for their Death's Door move with the living PC suffering the same consequence as the dying one as we confront The Reaper/The Lady of Crows. 6- and that is that. 7-9 and some profound concession/cost/oath must be made that binds the two PCs together and to the will of The Reaper/The Lady of Crows.

3) Their friend, still alive, is near enough to hold them and comfort them in their crossing over. They cry out "take me" or something of the like. The Reaper/Lady of Crows obliges...and that PC makes the Death's Door move instead, collapsing. We then find out what happens as the other PC draws a breath.


Same as above...doesn't break the game engine and something awesome has happened and new fiction has emerged around setting and characters (including significant risk/cost undertaken).


MOLDVAY BASIC - Not doing it, not entertaining it, and I can't imagine a player ever asking this. It would injure the game.

---

TLDR - Dark Sun or Moldvay (or some setting without miracles and magic and gods and legendary characters and mythology that must have some tale of this in their history) = No. Causes game engine to buckle = No. Is particularly injurious to archetype due to the potency of the effect w/ respect to the potency of the archetypal character's capabilities and/or well out of the order of what mundane stuff can resolve = No.

If none of those are in play = Yes w/ something sufficiently staked to create an interesting decision-point and a character-altering/defining moment.

 

[Eric V]

A softly spoken female voice forms in your mind. You. You who have caused so many grievous wounds, mortal wounds, now call for Eldath's aid. There are many things I could ask of you. But I only want that which is offered freely. So tell me, what is the life of your friend worth?

This is a perfectly good way to handle this, and my instinct is I'd probably go with something like it.

But the best part of this thread for me is how it's making me question my instincts. So, here's a question for everyone participating:

Is it possible, in the game you run, that the god of healing (gonna safely presume a good alignment for the god here, please don't @ me if it's not) simply heals the character, no strings attached? The god is good, an earnest and authentic prayer for help has been received, and so...why not?

 

[Baron Opal II]

There's always a cost, but sometimes the first hit is free. Just to sample the product to gauge the quality, you understand.

 

[Manbearcat]

This is a perfectly good way to handle this, and my instinct is I'd probably go with something like it.

But the best part of this thread for me is how it's making me question my instincts. So, here's a question for everyone participating:

Is it possible, in the game you run, that the god of healing (gonna safely presume a good alignment for the god here, please don't @ me if it's not) simply heals the character, no strings attached? The god is good, an earnest and authentic prayer for help has been received, and so...why not?

It depends upon the game, but, principally, for two reasons:

Protagonism Undercutting - This character has to earn their deeds and the player's role in that is to play with bold, thematic aggression, allowing system and procedures to have their say, but working relentlessly within the machinery of that particular game's engine to wrest control of the trajectory of play from their foils (those foils are both "within the fiction" and whatever tendency system has to make their lives hard...or impossible). We (collectively as a unit of participants in this game) are both audience and vessel. Something like the above moves us too far into that latter (writer's room) category. If we're not careful, then we're just cosplaying out a preconception of "how it should be" or "how we hope it would be" rather than "holding on lightly", earning our wins, and enduring the visceral shock (and possibly delight or, upon reflection, admiration) of our losses and sacrifices.

Competitive Integrity - This is similar to the above, but its less about bearing witness to the evolution of character and experiencing the revelations that come with sincere play. This is about the gamestate; purely about playing a game and working to authentically move the gamestate from here to there (rinse/repeat) within the rules of the game engine. Trying to shirk the honestly earned, due consequences of game's procedures? Trying to get wins without the guts, guile, will, and skill that earns them? These are bad things in the vein of the utterly awful meme of "if you're not cheating...you're not trying" is.

 

[CleverNickName]

Is it possible, in the game you run, that the god of healing (gonna safely presume a good alignment for the god here, please don't @ me if it's not) simply heals the character, no strings attached? The god is good, an earnest and authentic prayer for help has been received, and so...why not?

It's not possible in my games, because I don't want it to be. I want there to be conflict and cost, especially when dealing with higher powers. It has nothing to do with game balance or rules; I just think it makes for a better story. The relationship between gods and mortals is deliberately complicated in my game world.

No judgment if others do it differently, though. My way isn't the only way.

 

[Voadam]

Is it possible, in the game you run, that the god of healing (gonna safely presume a good alignment for the god here, please don't @ me if it's not) simply heals the character, no strings attached? The god is good, an earnest and authentic prayer for help has been received, and so...why not?

It would generally depend on a couple of things.

Is the god an interventionist deity who is omniciscient and omnipotent in their area? A good god of healing who sees all those in need of healing and can do any healing they want might. It might depend on a few more circumstances and the individual god but it is a plausible possibility.

The god might not be omniciscient and omnipotent though. The god might be a good divine supernatural being who goes around personally healing and (in the case of Eldath of the healing waters) blessing specific pools in the mortal world so they have ongoing healing properties that people can go to that are attended by divine caretaker druidic traditions. This is a good being who has done good healing things, but cannot answer direct prayers with a miracle of healing. There are still D&D world adventure things in such a setup that can be used with the pools and the druid and cleric and specialty priest healers who are followers of Eldath, just a prayer on its own would be insufficient to access the god's healing magic.

If the person prays and the god cannot hear that is the end of it. Do prayers need to come from priests at consecrated spots to be heard? Does the god need to be physically there to actually hear a prayer? Does it depend on whether the god is busy?