Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8754602" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm trying to relate these two paragraphs: the first refers to a certain sort of fiction ("supernatural" actions) and the second relates that to the mechanics.As I understand it, the idea is that the world-building inherent in the mechanics entails the following principle of action resolution: if your fictional positioning involves the supernatural, then the only permissible action declarations are the tightly mechanically circumscribed ones set out in the PC build rules.I don't quite get it. I don't think it's true in 4e D&D, for instance, because the 4e RC includes this on p 134, under the description of the Arcana skill: "A creature can sometimes use its knowledge of magic to interact with or manipulate magical phenomena." And this idea is built upon on p 136, which under the head "Improvisation with Arcana" lists "Control a phenomenon by manipulating its magical energy (hard DC)"; and also by the many examples of skill challenge set-ups which suggest Arcana as a skill for interacting with, manipulating or controlling a magical phenomenon. And this all hangs together: there is nothing in the way 4e presents PC build or its general resolution rules (which include the skill rules) that suggests any sort of boundary line between the resolution process when the fiction involves the supernatural, and when it doesn't.I don't know 5e as well. But the 5e Basic PDF does open with this:The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery. It shares elements with childhood games of make-believe. Like those games, D&D is driven by imagination. It’s about picturing the towering castle beneath the stormy night sky and imagining how a fantasy adventurer might react to the challenges that scene presents. . . . Unlike a game of make-believe, D&D gives structure to the stories, a way of determining the consequences of the adventurers’ action. Players roll dice to resolve whether their attacks hit or miss or whether their adventurers can scale a cliff, roll away from the strike of a magical lightning bolt, or pull off some other dangerous task. Anything is possible, but the dice make some outcomes more probable than others.The "anything" that is possible isn't expressly limited to that which is not supernatural in the fiction. The section on ability checks (p 58) says thatAn ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.In the default world of 5e D&D, praying for divine aid seems like the sort of thing that might have an uncertain outcome.And when it comes to mechanics, there is no quarantining of character-building elements to the supernatural. Eg Battlemasters are built to include abilities that aren't supernatural - but it seems to be widely accepted that a PC doesn't need to have the Battlemaster class abilities in order to do things like disarm a foe.Do the 5e rulebooks contain a statement of a rule or a principle that makes the issue - and in particular, the strictness of the mechanical parameters in relation to the supernatural - clearer?EDIT: [USER=2209]@Voadam[/USER], I think the above also responds to your post. 4e Religion skill does include knowledge of gods and of ceremonies, and under "Improvising with Religion" (RC p 152) includes "Preside over a known religious ceremony (moderate DC)". Presumably in the world of D&D religious ceremonies produce discernible supernatural effects! And of course the whole point of those improvisation lists is that they are suggestive, not prescriptive.In 5e I agree that rather than a WIS (Religion) check, a CHA (Religion) check might make more sense in the context of the OP, as it is more about religious passion than religious knowledge.</blockquote>

Verification