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

[EzekielRaiden]

I did not get this take from your posts at all. If this is your stance then I have no issues since it basically boils down to live and let live.

It occurred to me that I should clarify a little.

I absolutely, 100% think that every GM should strive to reach a point where they are comfortable finding answers to these campaign-specific questions. (I say "finding" to leave open collaborative methods, rather than always being GM-driven.) I think this is both a refinement of general GM skill, in the sense that answering these questions means having a richer, deeper, more "full" world, and a huge boon for getting, keeping, and growing player enthusiasm for and interest in the campaign. Part of why it is the latter is that doing so enables the kind of thing I'm talking about, where the rules exist and have value, but can be expanded upon where it makes sense to do so, whether at GM or player prompting.

Or, as Spock once put it, "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end."

Some GMs will simply be uncomfortable doing this, for whatever reason, and should thus adhere strictly to the rules, saying no to all questions which might require expanding beyond them. I consider that a deeply unfortunate situation, but it will happen, and ultimately it will be better for the health of the game to avoid doing something the GM isn't on board for than to force it through. But I genuinely believe such GMs really should work on becoming comfortable answering these questions and leveraging those answers to enable creative effort that expands beyond the rules (not contradicting them, just adding more possibilities.) Their games are essentially guaranteed to improve as a result, so long as they make the effort to keep these results constrained and focused rather than repeatable and/or trivial to employ (aka the effort to nix exploitation.) Such effort is not zero, but it really isn't particularly difficult; giving diegetic reasons why something can only work once, for example, or attaching nasty costs which players are unlikely to want to pay even once let alone multiple times, etc.

 

[AnotherGuy]

As I said above: there cannot, even in principle, be universal answers to these questions. Because universal answers can be exploited some particular context.

Each table must answer those questions individually.


Each of these is possible. Other possibilities include:

• You can only give your devotion once. Choose wisely.
• Deities have to live by rules of their own. Whatever these rules are (perhaps they can be learned), they apply here.
• Actual divine characters have learned how to do this safely. You risked your life doing it once. Try it again, you're dead, and probably won't even get anything for trying.
• The moment of epiphany and revelation is a beautiful, unique thing. It can't be forced, only happens once, and when it arrives, it can catalyze a miracle.
• The resulting miracle is a "first taste," and deities will expect proof of devotion to do anything further...aka, taking levels in a divine class.
• There aren't multiple gods, there's only one god, and this one god has a standing policy on this front.
• Existing religious groups are actively looking for anyone who does this. You will be hunted (for good or for ill, or perhaps both.)
• Such intervention is in fact actually difficult for deities, and only done for mortals they're trying to "claim." Other deities generally aren't dumb enough to raise a deity's ire by interfering with someone they've "claimed." Mortals...well, they might be dumb enough to try to make that happen.
• The gods are all part of the Celestial Bureaucracy. You can bend the rules....once. Do it again and you have to deal with the worst enemy in the universe.....paperwork. (More seriously: the celestial bureaucrats might overlook one irregularity. They won't overlook two.)
• There are no "gods," but there are "kami," which occupy a huge swathe of supernatural statuses. Getting a miracle like this means bonding yourself to a kami, which increases its power. This bond is permanent, and your "first time" boon can't happen again.
• Miracles bend the laws of reality--and the laws of reality fight back. Divine magic is part of those laws, miracles aren't. You cannot ever get the same miracle a second time, no matter who you ask. Deities are thus very reluctant to spend their miracles willy-nilly.

This should not be seen as an exhaustive list.

Thank you for this but to note my questions above where more rhetorical in nature, but you and me are on the same page here. It was the final part of my post that was the issue for me.

Then don't make it ridiculously repeatable. It's not hard! Just don't do that. Don't LET it be a formula. You're the DM. You have the power to prevent this thing being formulaic.

Oh I do, trust me. Our game has plenty of house rules.
My concern was that the action as considered in the OP appeared to not take that into account such easily repeatable requests and simplified such an action down to a simple skill check. I thought, incorrectly, you defended that position. It is clear now from this post that is not the case.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure there have been.

Take those who say just swap a religion check for a medicine check to stabilize.

So an intelligence check with or without proficiency (never been stated) is far superior to a wisdom check with or without proficiency (never been stated) to the point that we need to inflict costs on the player? Shouldn't that be the other way around since Wisdom is the far more useful ability score in the vast majority of cases?

This is no different than allowing a barbarian to use Strength athletics to bend a steel bar to intimidate someone. Mechanics aren't changing, flavor is.

Take those who say they want the character development of the character having a divine relationship/multiclassing into a powered class.

Pre-deciding on a character build has opportunity costs, does it not? Also, that seems entirely seperate from the actions at the table.

I suggested if you are in a divine intervention world and the DM wants to, just go with it however you want. That would be with costs or not. And it would be within 5e's rules for that to happen if the DM wants.

Sure, but a lot of people have also suggested the fighter losing HD, the fighter being given a mandatory quest, the fighter ending up in a warlock pact. I'd say there are far more involving costs than any non-costs, and even those often have costs, just not significant ones.

 

[Voadam]

So an intelligence check with or without proficiency (never been stated) is far superior to a wisdom check with or without proficiency (never been stated) to the point that we need to inflict costs on the player? Shouldn't that be the other way around since Wisdom is the far more useful ability score in the vast majority of cases?

This is no different than allowing a barbarian to use Strength athletics to bend a steel bar to intimidate someone. Mechanics aren't changing, flavor is.

Unstated whether this is an advantage or not. The fighter could be an eldritch knight with a higher int than wis. The fighter might have one trained versus the other as a background.

It is unstated whether this is a creative attempt to leverage better mechanics or a character flavor thing.

Pre-deciding on a character build has opportunity costs, does it not? Also, that seems entirely seperate from the actions at the table.

All build choices have an opportunity cost (unless anyone can do everything). The example was the player and DM using the answered prayer to justify a desired narrative and mechanical character development into a religiously powered character concept. The fighter becomes a paladin or cleric of the answering god by multiclassing at the next level, etc. This would use the prayer as a moment of awesome to enhance the character arc and story and meld them to the desired mechanical development. It would also be a free companion healing when needed compared to a character who just multiclassed at the next level.

A fighter multiclassing into a paladin has an opportunity cost versus other builds. A fighter multiclassing into a paladin after getting a free healing does not incur costs compared to a fighter multiclassing into a paladin without the free healing unless the DM adds costs.

Sure, but a lot of people have also suggested the fighter losing HD, the fighter being given a mandatory quest, the fighter ending up in a warlock pact. I'd say there are far more involving costs than any non-costs, and even those often have costs, just not significant ones.

Which is different than "But not a single proposal on this thread has been without cost."

 

[Chaosmancer]

Unstated whether this is an advantage or not. The fighter could be an eldritch knight with a higher int than wis. The fighter might have one trained versus the other as a background.

It is unstated whether this is a creative attempt to leverage better mechanics or a character flavor thing.

Exactly, so while we have no additional information, and this is clearly a hypothetical, it is best to assume that this is a flavor and RP moment, rather than dismiss it as them trying to leverage a superior intelligence due to a lack of wisdom.

Because the game makes no distinction in the value of having Religion over the value of having Medicine.

All build choices have an opportunity cost (unless anyone can do everything). The example was the player and DM using the answered prayer to justify a desired narrative and mechanical character development into a religiously powered character concept. The fighter becomes a paladin or cleric of the answering god by multiclassing at the next level, etc. This would use the prayer as a moment of awesome to enhance the character arc and story and meld them to the desired mechanical development. It would also be a free companion healing when needed compared to a character who just multiclassed at the next level.

A fighter multiclassing into a paladin has an opportunity cost versus other builds. A fighter multiclassing into a paladin after getting a free healing does not incur costs compared to a fighter multiclassing into a paladin without the free healing unless the DM adds costs.

So is your proposal to punish a character for trying to have an awesome moment of character development that naturally arose from the game play (it isn't like the Fighter was the one who dropped their companion to 0 hp)?

I'm not saying that the divine intervention can't come at a mechanical cost of HD or a story cost of a quest, but it seems you are trying to point out that the Fighter who suddenly and without reason decided to MC Paladin didn't get any awesome story moments or free heals, so the Fighter that tried to build a narrative arc before MCing Paladin must have additional costs put on them for trying to enhance the story.

Which is different than "But not a single proposal on this thread has been without cost."

Even the cost of using your action to heal an ally instead of attacking an enemy is a cost. That's why Healing word is weaker than Cure Wounds.

The question is less "should there be a cost" and is more "How high should the cost be?"

A fighter who bought a healer's kit has a cost of their action and 5 silver worth of materials from the kit.

Would we then say it is fair that the Fighter who is an acolyte, praying for the salvation of a character, during a mission from the church, and using their action should then have even harsher costs, such as permanent hp reductions?

This is the point I think @Manbearcat was getting at when discussing "what the mechanics can bear". The cost of stabilizing a character is rather trivial. Either an action and 5 silver, or an action and a DC 10 check. However, (assuming this is a natural moment that enhances the story) when the action declaration is more than the standard methods, we suddenly expect it is either impossible or the costs should be much much higher.

 

[Medic]

I have warm memories of a scenario in which the party that I was playing with desperately needed to escape from a dungeon, but a door was barring the way.

The rogue tried to pick the lock. He rolled a three, so he flubbed it.

The fighter tried to break it down with his maul. He rolled a two and didn't even leave a dent in the wood.

So, I was next. I was a bard that had no spell slots and no skills or class features that applied to the immediate situation. I did, however, have expertise in persuasion. So, like any individual of sound mind and powerful intellect, I boldly declared that my character stepped up to the door, and proceeded to give a titillating soliloquy to coax the door open that left the other players red-faced and speechless. The DM called for a roll - natural 20.

The DM spent a minute quietly flipping through his books, and the resultant silence was deafening. As for us, we looked at one another in bewilderment. None of us expected this to work, but... was this really happening? He went on to describe how the wood groaned and shifted imperceptibly, though offered no further details.

It was only after a minute of waiting that we realized that nothing happened.

My character spent the rest of that campaign known as "the crazy lady that flirts with doors."

 

[Voadam]

Exactly, so while we have no additional information, and this is clearly a hypothetical, it is best to assume that this is a flavor and RP moment, rather than dismiss it as them trying to leverage a superior intelligence due to a lack of wisdom.

That seems an unwarranted assumption to me. For an open ended hypothetical I think it is best to not assume only one interpretation. I think it makes more sense to discuss the multiple possible things that could be going on.

Because the game makes no distinction in the value of having Religion over the value of having Medicine.

I am not sure what you mean here. Presumably they do different things.

So is your proposal to punish a character for trying to have an awesome moment of character development that naturally arose from the game play (it isn't like the Fighter was the one who dropped their companion to 0 hp)?

My proposal is that there are tons of options for a DM to go with. No cost, trivial cost, balanced cost, high cost, rewarding the character, punishing the character.

Also we don't know the cause of the dying companion, maybe the fighter was possessed and dropped their companion or used a stick of dynamite or whatever that caught their companion in its blast.

I'm not saying that the divine intervention can't come at a mechanical cost of HD or a story cost of a quest, but it seems you are trying to point out that the Fighter who suddenly and without reason decided to MC Paladin didn't get any awesome story moments or free heals, so the Fighter that tried to build a narrative arc before MCing Paladin must have additional costs put on them for trying to enhance the story.

Without reason?

My hypothetical is a fighter who plans to multiclass into paladin and has this situation where they pray for their companion as roleplaying part of that transition. This fighter who gets a divine intervention answer to their prayer is not incurring a cost compared to the situation where the fighter's prayer is not answered and they multiclasses into paladin (either figuring the stabilization roll was the gods answering his prayer, or that they need to dedicate their self to the gods so they can divinely heal future dying people, or becoming an anti-theist vengeance paladin who resents the gods who did not answer their prayers to heal their companion).

I am not suggesting any must here.

Even the cost of using your action to heal an ally instead of attacking an enemy is a cost. That's why Healing word is weaker than Cure Wounds.

We don't even know from the given hypothetical whether combat is ongoing. Their is no opportunity cost of giving up attacking an enemy if there is no enemy to attack. The combat could be over, this could be death from a trap or a disease or whatever.

The question is less "should there be a cost" and is more "How high should the cost be?"

I disagree, I think the question is what do you want to happen?

A fighter who bought a healer's kit has a cost of their action and 5 silver worth of materials from the kit.

Would we then say it is fair that the Fighter who is an acolyte, praying for the salvation of a character, during a mission from the church, and using their action should then have even harsher costs, such as permanent hp reductions?

Could be. This is going to vary dramatically by context. If the gods are the Cthulhu mythos or the Melnibonean Lords of Chaos then any prayer and divine intervention could fairly risk resulting in a catastrophic result. If drawing on the power of the gods is dangerous or capricious (or is so for those doing so without the proper preparation or investiture or whatever) then I would not say it would be categorically unfair.

This is the point I think @Manbearcat was getting at when discussing "what the mechanics can bear". The cost of stabilizing a character is rather trivial. Either an action and 5 silver, or an action and a DC 10 check. However, (assuming this is a natural moment that enhances the story) when the action declaration is more than the standard methods, we suddenly expect it is either impossible or the costs should be much much higher.

Or we go with it without costs. One option is the prayer is answered and the dying person is not just stabilized but healed.

I think the standard baseline is nothing happens here, so impossible, but D&D leaves room for lots of options if a DM desires.

I do think the baseline is specific mechanics heal, others do not.

I do think an option would be to evaluate what could be done with existing mechanics (medicine check or healing kit) and come up with something similar using the different narrative (prayer) and different mechanics (religion check). Sort of say yes and make the result similar to what could be done naturally in the game using existing mechanics. This could be @Manbearcat's thing or not.

 

[Voadam]

I have warm memories of a scenario in which the party that I was playing with desperately needed to escape from a dungeon, but a door was barring the way.

The rogue tried to pick the lock. He rolled a three, so he flubbed it.

The fighter tried to break it down with his maul. He rolled a two and didn't even leave a dent in the wood.

So, I was next. I was a bard that had no spell slots and no skills or class features that applied to the immediate situation. I did, however, have expertise in persuasion. So, like any individual of sound mind and powerful intellect, I boldly declared that my character stepped up to the door, and proceeded to give a titillating soliloquy to coax the door open that left the other players red-faced and speechless. The DM called for a roll - natural 20.

The DM spent a minute quietly flipping through his books, and the resultant silence was deafening. As for us, we looked at one another in bewilderment. None of us expected this to work, but... was this really happening? He went on to describe how the wood groaned and shifted imperceptibly, though offered no further details.

It was only after a minute of waiting that we realized that nothing happened.

My character spent the rest of that campaign known as "the crazy lady that flirts with doors."

 

[Imaro]

It occurred to me that I should clarify a little.

I absolutely, 100% think that every GM should strive to reach a point where they are comfortable finding answers to these campaign-specific questions. (I say "finding" to leave open collaborative methods, rather than always being GM-driven.) I think this is both a refinement of general GM skill, in the sense that answering these questions means having a richer, deeper, more "full" world, and a huge boon for getting, keeping, and growing player enthusiasm for and interest in the campaign. Part of why it is the latter is that doing so enables the kind of thing I'm talking about, where the rules exist and have value, but can be expanded upon where it makes sense to do so, whether at GM or player prompting.

Or, as Spock once put it, "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end."

Some GMs will simply be uncomfortable doing this, for whatever reason, and should thus adhere strictly to the rules, saying no to all questions which might require expanding beyond them. I consider that a deeply unfortunate situation, but it will happen, and ultimately it will be better for the health of the game to avoid doing something the GM isn't on board for than to force it through. But I genuinely believe such GMs really should work on becoming comfortable answering these questions and leveraging those answers to enable creative effort that expands beyond the rules (not contradicting them, just adding more possibilities.) Their games are essentially guaranteed to improve as a result, so long as they make the effort to keep these results constrained and focused rather than repeatable and/or trivial to employ (aka the effort to nix exploitation.) Such effort is not zero, but it really isn't particularly difficult; giving diegetic reasons why something can only work once, for example, or attaching nasty costs which players are unlikely to want to pay even once let alone multiple times, etc.

I can get behind most of this. I do think thought there is the possible pitfall where because some players are more comfortable asking for things beyond the rules (whether because they are better friends with the DM, more creative at improv'ing, more talkative or whatever) they can come to dominate a larger and larger portion of the game spotlight as the DM continues to accommodate them. In other words this style IMO is great for a specific type of player (or player group)... but can seem unfair, chaotic or bewildering to some.

Right now I have a mixed group of veteran D&D players (3) and beginners (3), and I find because they are more comfortable with the rules and the game in general the vets tend to try outside the box things while the beginner's are sill trying to come to terms with the basic rules of the game. It has led to an imbalance that I have found myself having to be careful with when it comes to things like this. On the one hand I want to allow some of it so that the beginners will see it's possible, but on the other hand if i try to always accommodate it the veterans will at this point monopolize too much of the spotlight for my liking.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I can get behind most of this. I do think thought there is the possible pitfall where because some players are more comfortable asking for things beyond the rules (whether because they are better friends with the DM, more creative at improv'ing, more talkative or whatever) they can come to dominate a larger and larger portion of the game spotlight as the DM continues to accommodate them. In other words this style IMO is great for a specific type of player (or player group)... but can seem unfair, chaotic or bewildering to some.

The decision by the GM to be flexible and encourage asking for things beyond the rules has consequences, but so does the decision to discourage it.

Personally, I find that encouraging this incentivizes the kind of play I enjoy:

• Players do not sit out social/exploration encounters because they don’t have skills that are directly applicable;
• Martial characters that tend to have more fixed and less versatile options can participate more;
• Players are more encouraged to take “sub-optimal” skills if they are confident that they will be permitted to leverage them in outside the box ways;
• Leading directly from the previous, fewer cookie cutter builds;
• Encourage roleplay and outside the box thinking;
• At least once every few sessions, it is good for a laugh.