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

[AnotherGuy]

I think this is why @Manbearcat referred to it as a "nothingburger" in 5e terms. Upthread, I made a post setting out my way of thinking about it in 4e terms. (The thread is tagged D&D general, not 5e-specific.)

Perhaps it would have been more helpful not to have used the words praying and Religion checks if all you had meant were medicine checks, use of equipment or administering a healing potion. Then we could have all joined in agreement with Manbearcat's "nothingburger".

Pity about that missed opportunity.

 

[Manbearcat]

Perhaps it would have been more helpful not to have used the words praying and Religion checks if all you had meant were medicine checks, use of equipment or administering a healing potion. Then we could have all joined in agreement with Manbearcat's "nothingburger".

Pity about that missed opportunity.

For clarity, my use of "nothingburger" is under the "does the action declaration causes the game engine to buckle(?)" and "is this injurious to the primary archetype (Cleric/Paladin) because of how potent it is(?)" components of my evaluation process.

Its a "nothingburger because (a) its trivially resolved via 5 gp Medicine Kit sans check (or low DC Medicine Check) and (b), compared with the breadth and potency of a Cleric/Paladin's Divine suite of resources, it doesn't even rise to many degrees south of "meh" in terms of "working miracles through divine sponsorship."

And again, with respect to (a), in the overwhelming % of use cases, this is going to be a tactically suboptimal action economy expenditure for a Fighter with Extra Attack so it runs deeper than just "trivially resolved via other (easily attainable) means."

 

[chaochou]

Pity about that missed opportunity.

What's that? You missed the opportunity to understand the thread?

 

[AnotherGuy]

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

So when can they (the gods) be used? What are the exact rules here?

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.

So why in this case is it allowed? Is it because it is the first time? Does the god answer once and only once? Can a different god not answer? Can a different character not try this?

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?

We don't assume, we know. When 4e flanking gave a +2 or charging (I could be wrong on this, its been a while) gave a +1 you would see ridiculous repeatable movement on the battlefield in order to get those bonuses. And I'm not picking on 4e, its every edition. Winning formulas are used again and again by players.

 

[AnotherGuy]

What's that? You missed the opportunity to understand the thread?

No. To agree with Manbearcat of course.
I also want to agree with him.

 

[pemerton]

Perhaps it would have been more helpful not to have used the words praying and Religion checks if all you had meant were medicine checks, use of equipment or administering a healing potion. Then we could have all joined in agreement with Manbearcat's "nothingburger".

Pity about that missed opportunity.

I don't follow your post. Both @Manbearcat and @hawkeyefan have pointed out that, in 5e D&D, stabilising a dying character is not an outcome that is understood as player-side resource-intensive. (Contrast, say, raising the dead or building a palace.)

I made a post which set out the framework for thinking about the resource cost, in 4e D&D, of allowing a character to recover a healing surge's worth of hit points.

To me, it seems that an important part of adjudicating actions, in resource-heavy RPGs, is understanding the way that the action sits within the broader framework that relates resources to outcomes.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I don't follow your post. Both @Manbearcat and @hawkeyefan have pointed out that, in 5e D&D, stabilising a dying character is not an outcome that is understood as player-side resource-intensive. (Contrast, say, raising the dead or building a palace.)

I made a post which set out the framework for thinking about the resource cost, in 4e D&D, of allowing a character to recover a healing surge's worth of hit points.

To me, it seems that an important part of adjudicating actions, in resource-heavy RPGs, is understanding the way that the action sits within the broader framework that relates resources to outcomes.

Let me be more succinct.
Why did you use the words prays and Religion (check) in your OP?

 

[pemerton]

Let me be more succinct.
Why did you use the words prays and Religion (check) in your OP?

Because I was imagining an action declaration - fighter prays to the gods to heal their friend who is injured and/or dying - and I conjectured a possible way of resolving that declaration. Given that prayer is a type of religious practice, Religion seemed like it might be the salient skill.

 

[OneRedRook]

My question to this would be why? Why are you giving them an extra chance on top of whatever other resources/chances they have/had to bring to bear? Why are you ok that they suffer the consequences after this check (if failed) vs. before it if they've already found themselves unable to succeed?

So the short answer here is that I think finding out what characters are willing to risk in pursuit of their goals is interesting and fun, and this applies at all levels of "zoom" in play, from ticky-tacky 5ft of movement to breaking alliances, closing magical portals, etc. But maybe my answer the Jester below also pertains here?

My answer remains pretty much "play by the rules".

A character wants to move more than their speed? Dash. That's not enough? Well, let's hope they make it to next round.

You can move your speed. Not your speed + 5'. I wouldn't allow a monster to do this (absent some special trait or something) either.

To be clear up front, I think choosing to play a game with a strict interpretation of its rules is entirely fair and reasonable.

I've been playing D&D in some form since the mid-80s. I say this not because I'm some font of wisdom greybeard, but just to make the point that I'm inordinately fond of role playing in general and D&D in particular. That said, as a game to be judged by its set of rules and how they interact, my opinion is that most editions are ... OK, I guess? They're not terrible, but often seem to be limiting in ways and at times that are frustrating, which I say as both player and DM.

As a framework for roleplaying though, 5e (say) is still a bit of a mess, but it's also a boat-load of fun (honestly, in part because of the mess, but that might be another post). And by 'framework' I mean having a process I can clearly communicate to players how actions not covered by the rules might be resolved, and avoiding the implication that the existence of a rule governing some action, ability, etc in some place doesn't proscribe a player's attempt at something similar in a different context. And realistically, I do sometimes fall back to only relying on the rules, but I feel my games are better when I don't.

 

[FrozenNorth]

By way of contrast, to stabilize a dying creature is a DC 10 Medicine check if you’re trained and it takes your action.

If the fighter was trained in Religion, I would see no objection to replacing Medicine with Religion (maybe bumping up the DC a bit to compensate).

It’s not like Religion is uberpowerful in the game.

For bigger miracles, I have in the past allowed non-clerics to use the Divine Intervention feature, but only if it makes sense in the story. It has never been abused.