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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8754697" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Except the other interpretation is inherently toxic. It becomes trying to "cheat" the system, and thus gets ruled harshly against. It is far more neutral to actually assume the fighter is making a genuine attempt, because then the question is entirely on the mechanics and the story, not "is this player trying to cheat me".Sure, they do different things. But so do Athletics and Intimidation, yet it is perfectly coherent to roll athletics to intimidate someone. Rolling history in an ancient castle is equally coherent to rolling investigation to find a secret door. Survival and Nature could both be used to find a Dyrad's secret grove.And to the game engine, a skill proficiency is a skill proficiency is a skill proficiency. They are completely equal.I mean, that list of proposed options is basically saying "this is an event in the game". Sure, you can do anything in theory. But I don't punish players for having fun and making dramatic story moments, so it would be a bizarre choice. Would the cause of the dying companion really make any difference?But you seem to be missing my point. Why would there be a high cost to begin with? You seem to be taking a stance of "The DM will decide and I will make no statement beyond that." Which.. really makes it difficult to discuss with you, because obviously the DM is making a decision, but the discussion is about why they make the decision they make. What drives that decision? Would that make a difference? We don't upgrade the DC of medicine checks outside of combat. Why would the ruling on this prayer be made more difficult outside of combat? Again, this is about the WHY of the decision, not which decision is correct.Better question "What does the player want to happen?" I'm the DM, I didn't tell the fighter to start praying. They made that decision and they felt it was a good call. Maybe this is a joke campaign and they are being silly. Maybe this is a grim-dark campaign and they expect the character to die in their arms. Maybe this is a game world where the gods constantly interfere in the lives of heroes, and they expect an answer to their prayers. What I want is the same thing I always want, to make the best story possible. And sometimes that means stepping beyond "that is the wrong action declaration" and instead looking at the story being built here.And how many DnD campaigns is that the case? Honestly, I get that this isn't a universal "this must be one way" but in a Mythos world no player is going to pray to Cthulhu to save their friend, except as a dark villain "this is how we fall" moment. But you keep taking the context out of traditional DnD, and I'm not sure why we need to go far afield to every possible game world to discuss this. Exceptions exist. In the land where the gods are dead and their corpses litter the ground, praying to them doesn't work. Agreed. Normal DnD games aren't like that.Okay, but here is the question. Why? Divine Powers heal. Praying over the wounded to heal them is a common fantasy scene in games, literature and art. So what makes this so out there? I know you later said you could reskin the mechanics, but your first instinct is "it's impossible, those are the wrong mechanics" and that reaction is where I think the interesting discussion lies. Because that was my first knee-jerk reaction too. But why? What makes this so divisive?</blockquote>

Verification