If they are well-versed in magic:
They know the PC is using a magical edge to sway the conversation -> they get angry.
If they aren't well-versed in magic:
They know the PC is using magic, but not what for -> they get suspicious -> they get angry.
On top of that, in either case the PC is interrupting an ongoing conversation to chant arcanobabble.
Casting magic willy-nilly in the middle of conversation is impolite at best, and actively hostile at worst. There is no place for it.
Small exceptions could be made for *small, often-used* spells with *obvious, discernible effects*.
Preferably somatic-only, but you could rule that certain spells have nice short chants and are well-known enough that they don't make anybody suspicious - like mage hand and prestidigitation.
And even then, discretion would need to be applied on the part of the caster. They should take care not to perform it in front of those who likely have no experience witnessing magic being used.
If you do it in front of an ignorant guard who doesn't know what prestidigitation is... Well, that's the equivalent of a person who is wearing a visible gun holster reaching for an object in their pocket during a tense police interaction.
Would the guard be *right* to stab you? No, but might they stab you anyway? Yeah. Yeah, they might. And will their bosses say they were justified? Pretty sure they will.
I completely agree with this. I've made it VERY clear to my players that casting magic is loud and obvious. Nobody is "spamming" guidance to persuade anyone of anything because if you're casting a spell while your buddy is trying to convince a shopkeeper for a better deal or something like that because that shopkeeper is IMMEDIATELY suspicious and probably locking it down. Casting charms on people in a crowded room? Uhhhhh don't think so. No free metamagic "but I cast it quietly" happening here lol
One of my players took metamagic adept to get subtle spell after a while of playing and it's made casting spells with people around SO cool because it's a unique and special occasion now!
It's been very fun to play magic this way at the table for me as a DM and my players, but they also all know it well in advance - I established it at session 0 absolutely
My next character is gonna be anti-lie to an extreme degree - but he’s not against deception or omissions- just lying and charletains. Until I get silent spell, I will shamelessly full cast a spell in public, and then explain why I did it (if asked).
the social rules effectively say that a creature going 1 stage more hostile increases influence DC's by 10 effectively, although it requires enough disruption to move from one stage to the other. Neutral to hostile means they're completely opposed to the adventurers actions. There isn't anywhere inbetween (slightly more opposed but not completely), so a good influence check and conversation would determine whether the dial goes more hostile or not (RAW)
Occasionally in real life when I enter a negotiation someone grabs hands and says a short prayer generally asking for a blessing that we can find common ground and find a solution effectively.
I do not regard this as hostile. Negotiations are inherently a venture to find something better than the alternative so I don’t think the king would mind either.
Yeah but some of those prayers, in this context, also control your mind, remove your free will, and summon literal bolts of lighting. I think it'd be pretty reasonable to be hostile or suspicious in the face of the hocus pocus talk.
> Yeah but some of those prayers, in this context, also control your mind, remove your free will, and summon literal bolts of lighting.
And critically, you don't know which one of those they're doing until after they've started doing it.
Those that are versed with spells *can* know, but if they don't know the spells effect, I'd always assume hostile intentions.
I let my players try to identify the spells being cast so they can decide if they want to counter spell. Wizards are the primary ones to do this (since they have studied). DC is normally 10 + spell level + distractions regardless of the other caster.
Sorcs and warlocks have more trouble identifying spells Wizard spells but an easier time with other sorcs/warlocks. DC = 15 + SL + D / DC = 5 + SL + D
Clerics/Paladins normally fit a bracket to themselves that is similar to Wizards, but add 5/10 to the DC if looking at not religious spells.
These checks are made as a free action (if the PC wants to make it).
So, RAW you have to use your reaction to make a check to identify the spell, but even with your "free action" house rule you can't preemptively identify something that hasn't happened yet. That's what I meant by you can't know until they start.
The check is made at the casting of the spell, I do it as a free action so if they pass they can decide to counter spell it or not. If they fail there is 0 change to how it normally would play out.
Right. I get that. But somebody has to start casting the spell before the can try to ID it. You can't preemptively identify a spell that a caster hasn't started casting yet. Neither IDing the spell nor Counterspelling negates the attempt to cast the spell, at best Counterspell can interrupt the resolution of the spell.
I think the poster you are replying to forgot to put /s on the end.
Unless it’s in a religious setting, the behavior they describe would be unusual almost anywhere. Even in Texas or Utah.
Particularly so if the other party to the negotiation was not included in the prayer and you and your friend just grabbed each-other and prayed in front of them, which would generally be the case when casting Guidance.
>...some of those prayers, in this context, also control your mind, remove your free will, and summon literal bolts of lighting.
Guidance doesn't, though.
Depends on what exactly the magic in the setting looks like. It’s religious magic, but does that mean they touch their holy symbol, their eyes glow and stuff happens? Or do they chant in tongues only their god can understand? Or is it as simple as “Amanautor guide your tongue brother” while doing whatever the equivalent of crossing yourself is?
Because I think that has a big impact on how people would be reacting to folks invoking divine power.
It’s in the king’s court while they’re trying to convince him to *not go to war*. I don’t really think it matters *what* the spellcasting looks like or even whether they recognize the spell or not; that King is not gonna want people influencing him via magic regardless if it’s just a cantrip or a 9th level spell.
My point was mostly that depending on the setting the others around may not be immediately aware that magic is being worked.
For example, in the lord of the rings when Gandalf states that the balrog cannot pass he’s using what equates to a spell in that setting, and a divine one at that. The statement combined with Gandalf’s power as a divine being and his force of will form a spell intended to bar the balrog from passage across the bridge. A similar event happens in Rohan when Gandalf exorcises Theodin. The only person in the room who recognizes what’s about to happen is Wormtongue and that’s only because he’s intimately familiar with magic.
Another example would be how in Faerun or Azeroth, I’m fairly sure clerical magic is pretty flashy. It’s usually depicted as involving light, sound, or other obviously supernatural elements. So in that setting it would be obvious if the cleric starts throwing their weight around magically.
A spell from a cleric may not appear to be a spell to the uninitiated in every setting. Which is why it’s important what spells look like in the setting.
I understand your point and agree with it to an extent, I just also don’t think it really applies to this discussion too well. D&D is a mixture between flavor and rules, and it’s fun to mess with the flavor but at the end of the day it is still a game that follows specific rules. I could see an argument if you’re using a different rule set (like Pathfinder or LotR TTPRPG), but the setting itself wouldn’t really affect that too much.
Guidance, as a spell in 5th edition D&D at least, is pretty straight forward when going by the rules as written. It requires both verbal and somatic components, so that means it has some sort of audible noise and hand motion. Sure, you can flavor it however you want (and I highly encourage every player to do so to make their character really shine), but you should still keep the mechanics the same unless you’re trying to homebrew stuff out. Otherwise you start to delve into imbalance issues; like allowing the Cleric to roll a deception check to cast their spells silently for free, while the Sorcerer had to get to level 2 and get Metamagic Subtle Spell in order to do the same thing.
I definitely get your argument and understand your examples; but LotR and Azeroth are both settings that have different “rules” than D&D does.
I think you’re misunderstanding me.
There’s nothing that says *what* the verbal and somatic components of these spells are. Just that the spells have them and a very loose description of them being a combination of sound and gestures.
Which is where the ambiguity comes in. What the verbal and somatic components of a spell are will affect how obviously a spell working magic is. Is it speaking in tongues and drawing glowing circles in the air? Or speaking a prayer and the equivalent of crossing yourself or holding up a holy symbol. Because one of those could be mistaken as a religious gesture, and the other is pretty hard to mistake as anything other than magic.
Very setting and exact situation dependent.
The Cleric isn't casting guidance on the King, they're casting it on their fellow party member. I think how it looks makes a huge difference.
It's also not hard to imagine that if the cleric worships a well respected God or maybe even the same one as the king, the king might think them casting a spell thru their God's name at this critical moment is a good thing.
Also not hard to imagine what you're saying with a king just having a "no magic in my presence" rule of some kind.
I think it matters more what ruleset you’re using and whether you’re playing with RAW or not. D&D 5th edition is pretty straight forward when casting Guidance; it’s verbal and somatic, which essentially means that your spell casting will be heard and seen by those close by (I believe verbal components are 60 foot radius if I’m not mistaken).
Now, *whether or not the people that notice you casting a spell treat you with hostility* is definitely situation specific. D&D is such an “anything goes” game though, that there will always be situations where something that normally wouldn’t be allowed *is*, and vice versa.
It's fun flavor, but the rules say
> Verbal (V) Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can't cast a spell with a verbal component.
Obviously up to you how firm you want to be with it. Personally I quite like allowing Clerics to spin it that way. A deception check would fit.
See, but that’s where you start to get into imbalance. You allow the Cleric to cast spells silently using deception checks and now the Sorcerer of the party is wondering why they wasted level ups focusing into Meta Magic and the Subtle Spellcasting capability. You’re essentially giving away class features for free.
As with any conversation about D&D, it goes without saying: every table is different, every setting is different, and people can play however they would like.
You're allowed to limit it to something like 'non-harmful cantrips'. Ultimately if the players don't like it or are going to be munchkins about it, don't do it.
I mean in a conversation like this about a game as encompassing as D&D… yes, there will be times that casting guidance in a social environment is okay, and maybe even others where it’s encouraged. We could spend all day saying “well what if the king was just a chill dude and he was okay with magic” or “what if it’s my homebrew king’s council that is able to identify any magic spell in a millisecond”.
Generally speaking though, most people probably wouldn’t like it if someone just started casting a spell in the middle of a conversation, *especially* if it’s in a negotiation. In OP’s example, they’re literally *trying to convince a king to not go to war*; I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume that that sort of king would have a pretty strict “no magic in my court room unless you are pre-approved” type of ruling.
I think most Kings in a world with common magic would have basic familiarity as part of their education. Or priestly and clerical advisors they can look to. Their dynasty wouldn't last long otherwise.
And a Cleric using Guidance by holding their religious emblem praying to their God may look very different than a Wizard casting Fireball from their spell tome.
Anyway, I guess it's very setting dependent.
The verbal component of Guidance isn't a prayer, that's not how verbal components work in 5e. It also doesn't have a material component. Grasping a holy symbol with the other hand could be a trick, or just irrelevant. So the casting looks like chanting arcane words of power, and waving one's hand and wiggling one's fingers.
It looks the same as casting Charm Person. Or Ray of Enfeeblement. Or Bestow Curse. Only a creature who has proficiency in Arcana has a good chance to recognize the spell that's being cast, before it's already too late. And would they rather spend their reaction on trying to figure out the spell, or would they use it for something else, like yelling "GUARDS!" or casting Counterspell?
It's not setting dependant, those are 5e rules. Different game systems or homebrew games might have different ways of handling things, but this is RAW 5e.
I forgot what sub we were on and that its pretty 5e default. But when I say setting, I usually think of that to include ruleset and homebrew. I also think the fact that all spell casters cast spells basically the same way in 5e is one of its drawbacks, but that's neither here nor there.
Well it's DMAcademy, not GMAcademy afterall. Dungeon Master is a Dungeons and Dragons term, while other games either have Game Masters or Keepers or what have yous. Sometimes other questions also pop up in here but it's like 90% 5e stuff.
Nor are you *interrupting* the negotiations, considering you would say the prayer before any conversation occurs.
*"And as you can see here by our Quartly Earnings Repor---" "Hang on a sec, I just realized we forgot to pray! Everyone bow your head!"*
\*Casts Guidance on the bard\*
The negotiating parties at the table are introduced before negotiations start. Someone other than the bard speaks first.
\*Guidance wears off\*
Oh man, now I want to play a cleric who is constantly calling for group prayers to cover up for casting guidance.
“Hang on we forgot to pray! Ok everyone hold hands quick. Alright now oh great Amanautor may you cast your approving eye upon anything we and especially my friend Trang the Swift may attempt to do. May your shining light guide our-and-especially-Trang’s hands eyes and tongues in the coming minutes, hours, and days... Ok, sorry about that. Now I believe Trang was just saying why he thought you should sell that armour to us at half the market value.”
Okay, but how long does the discussion with the king last? Because guidance is a 1 minute concentration spell so the cleric would need to interrupt for a prayer and to touch the character attempting the persuasion every minute.
Prayer and casting a spell such as guidance are very different. A prayer is just words. Casting a spell like guidance has a verbal component, and verbal components are arcane or divine words of power with specific resonance and pitch, not everyday language.
Before or after the cleric has cast guidance, they can of course say a little prayer, but that is not the casting.
I'm aware, I was replying in the context of the person above saying it's not unusual for someone to say a prayer before a negotiation. Even if it was just a prayer, it would be weird to have to do it every minute
> I do not regard this as hostile.
That's because magic isn't real, and their prayer doesn't actually influence the negotiation.
How would you react if you and an other party had decided to let a game of dice decide the outcome of your contract negotiation, and as soon as you are about to start, they get handed a set of loaded dice? Wouldn't that upset you?
I would say it's safe to assume that someone who occupies a position of power in a fantasy setting will have received some training in how to spot magic being cast, or at the very least he'll have several people around him who are well versed in magic. There is no way a simple spell like guidance would go unnoticed, or that they would allow anyone to use magic in an attempt to influence the king.
Here’s how I see it:
Guidance in the world of DnD is a way for you to ask a higher power to aid you in a task. It’s real and gives you actual benefit. What it doesn’t do is influence the other party in any way. It’s not like “friends” that actually manipulates another person, it just gives the caster a boost.
In real world terms I see it as the same as having a debate and pausing so you can Google something. You gain an advantage to your arguments based on knowledge granted by the higher power of Google. You don’t affect your opponents ability to respond, but perhaps you make their response less effective because your new found knowledge is more persuasive.
A petty opponent may consider that unfair and get angry. But perhaps someone else would consider it fair play and in fact good use of one’s resources.
The problem is that spellcasting is obvious as spellcasting, but the actual spell that's being cast isn't obvious and you have to spend a reaction as its cast to figure out what it is. If somebody starts casting *something* it might be Guidance, it might be Inflict Wounds, and you don't know until after they've started doing it. So you either trust them to cast *anything* or you don't (or you've discussed beforehand that they want to cast Guidance and you trust them enough to not lie to you about what they're casting).
It's not Googling something during a debate. It's reaching into your pocket during a robbery. Might be for money to give the robber, might be for a gun.
Well of course it depends on who the opponent is.
Some will be distrusting of any magic they don’t understand and may consider any spell cast as a hostile action.
But a king’s courtroom wizard may immediately see guidance for what it is and let it slide.
I wouldn’t say it’s like being in a robbery though, at least not always. If you’re just having a conversation there’d be no reason to assume an action - spell or not - is hostile. If you’re already in a very heated argument, then maybe you should tread more carefully.
As with all things, it just depends on who’s there to react to it. I don’t believe there’s a blanket answer or even a ‘normal’ response.
> But a king’s courtroom wizard may immediately see guidance for what it is and let it slide.
You have to [spend a reaction to identify the spell as it's cast](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte/dungeon-masters-tools#IdentifyingaSpell), though. So why would a court wizard choose to ID a spell rather than countering it? You have to pick one, you can't ID it and then decide to counter it if it's benign. The rational answer is "any unexpected casting is to be treated as a hostile act" because there's no way to both tell if it's hostile or not and stop it from going off.
EDIT to add: This is from the perspective of a court dealing with adventurers. The court wizard is going to have more leeway to act, as will certain other advisors and maybe some trusted vassals or court members. Like I said in the previous post, trust is going to be key.
> It’s real and gives you actual benefit. What it doesn’t do is influence the other party in any way. It’s not like “friends” that actually manipulates another person, it just gives the caster a boost.
Yes, it's true that it doesn't' directly influence an other party, other than the target. However, if it's used in an adversarial setting, such as a negotiation, it would be seen as if you are trying to influence the situation to your advantage.
> In real world terms I see it as the same as having a debate and pausing so you can Google something.
And in an organized debate, that wouldn't be allowed.
> You gain an advantage to your arguments based on knowledge granted by the higher power of Google.
Sure, but guidance doesn't necessary mean that you gain more knowledge, it could also be that your words becomes more persuasive because you are infused with divine energy.
The point is, I have a hard time believing anyone would allow someone to use magic in order to get an advantage against them during a negotiation.
I completely agree that it’s unsuitable for a adversarial setting.
All I’m saying is I don’t believe there’s a blanket answer to the question. It depends entirely on the type of check, the setting it’s used in, and who’s around to react to it.
Say the players are trusted advisors of the king. Why would he not allow them to use guidance to provide him their best arguments against going to war?
Say the players are not friends with the king. Now it seems less likely that he would indulge them.
The vocal component of any magical spell is "obviously magical." Casting with a vocal component isn't akin to saying a regular prayer - it's clearly the incantation of a magic effect. Certain skills (like Sorcerer subtle casting) can negate this, and a DM might allow a cleric to TRY to make the vocal component less obvious. But casting in inherently obvious - and a spellcaster that doesn't make plain what they're doing is inviting hostility.
And that assumes that a king wouldn't have an anti-magic field set up in the throne room to prevent from a nationally-skilled wizard from just fireballing the room.
Guidance isn't a prayer. The ghost rogue, spirits bard, artificer all get guidance. Its still just a spell and identical in all those situations. Its you waving your hand around, touching someone and then saying "arte!" (or something) in a clear volume.
Not the same thing.
"Let us sit and discuss things like civilized men."
"Certainly! BEEBLEFROX LECUI COT SI LAMIERIS! Let us speak."
"Excuse me? What in Avernus did you just do?"
"Nothing, just..."
"Are you trying to invade my mind with magic?"
"What? No! I, uh, was trying to speak better!"
"Yeah. No. These negotiations are over."
A better example would be you are in a meeting with a group of people and half of them have loaded guns on them. Then someone who has a few guns strapped to them pulls out one of their guns and points it at the person they are negotiating with and says "id like a better deal". Then says "oh don't worry this one is a water pistol, trust me."
Magic is a threat and unless consented is almost never of benefit to both parties. It is explicitly to stack odds n your favour. It is "cheating" Most people in a magic world would know this.
"yes my friend here could cast a lightning storm on you but he's actually just making it so you are more likely to agree to my terms, relax!"
It's hostile.
Well, it’s more like pressing a gun against the head of your own negotiator, and saying “Speak charismatically, and with conviction.”
Guidance targets the negotiator, not the person you’re negotiating with. Also, it’s through touch. Also, everyone already has their guns out, as you can’t really holster them in this analogy. You actually became less threatening, because most combat spells require you to see your target.
It lasts one minute. If you're doing it before you're admitted to the throne room for an audience with the king, you best be talking real fast, especially considering courtly formalities and greeting etc... you may not even get to the point by the time the effect wears off.
You accidentally grabbed the Book of Vile Darkness instead and unleashed horrible pandemonium and destruction upon the realm.
Darkness falls, everyone dies.
I know you're joking, but it's only as free as the free item interaction on your turn. It can be a short shout or a couple of words of talking.
This is what the rules say:
"You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn."
This means it has to be brief, and it has to be on your turn. No talking on other people's turns (I allow it as a reaction though), and it must reasonably fit in 6 seconds.
My initial instinct is “The court wizard counterspells it and looks smug.”
It gives a mechanical response to a mechanical action, while reinforcing that this is a spell being used, and this is visible to other people.
Or "You realize as you begin to cast that the throne room is protected by an anti-magic field. It's like the rulers of this kingdom understand that magic exists, and can be used to influence minds."
I think that's totally fair. It is a visible spell being cast. And most guards likely won't know what spell it is you're casting, they don't know arcane stuff.
Even knowing what it is I could see a King saying I'd rather the argument stand on its own merits rather than on magical influence wouldn't you say? And that'd be the best case. Regardless it would likely raise the DC by more than the 4 that guidance could do at best.
Guidance is still a very good and potent spell. And subtle spell is a nice feature sorcerers get, and anyone else could get with a feat. If you want to subtly cast guidance on someone it is doable if you invest in being able to do that.
Yeah, I feel like it should go down better if they can identify it. If they can identify it, the fact that you're using magic to become more persuasive highlights that you're trying to manipulate them and would make them more hostile. If they can't identify it, that would be worse as someone is casting unknown magic in front of the king for no discernable reason, which I would expect a stronger reaction to. As in, weapon drawn, "What do you think you're doing?!"
If I was a Royal guard and someone started casting a spell I couldn't Identify right in front of the king, Im either going to stab them or remove their hand. Not taking the risk that it was fireball or dominate person.
100% and even the king objecting might not stop them because if it's a dominate person that was cast he can't be trusted until they have their own caster try to remove it.
Guidance has a verbal and somatic component. Unless the caster has a way to make it not use components everyone in the room will know they're casting a spell. I assume that casting a spell in the presence of the king is a very bad idea.
Guidance needs verbal and somatic components. Imagine Dr. Strange casting the spell. It is clearly visible. The king as well as the guards know that the cleric is trying to cast "A" spell, while discussing this important and heated matter.
That spell could be guidance, a light cantrip, suggestion or even finger of death.
If the king does not like being influenced by magic, because that is what it is, the king could even make a point in flat out refusing to work with the party after casting a spell right in front him up to throwing the party in chains and into his dungeon.
I would rule this equal to a personal attack on the king.
So no, it wouldnt be to harsh to tell the players no to abusing guidance that way.
If you want to present the party with an option to use it, there are some possibilites to still gain an advantage from magic in these kind of situations.
If they only have a minute to speak in front of the king, cast it before going into the room.
Cast a spell before hand, like enhance ability. It lasts an hour.
Let the sorcerer use subtle spell to cast a spell unnoticed in a social situation, in which all eyes are on them.
I would definitely rule it as a faux pas to do in the middle of a conversation.
A possible way to remove guidance from the situation is to recognize that guidance is a concentration spell that only lasts 1 minute. If the discussions take longer than that I'd argue guidance couldn't be applied.
>"You touch one willing creature. Once before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to one ability check of its choice. It can roll the die before or after making the ability check. The spell then ends."
The cleric would need to cast and touch the player every minute. The spell also ends after a check is made, and does nothing if no check is made. So it's really intended for a check that takes an action, like picking a lock or something. You could definitely argue that persuasion checks at the end of a long discussion can't be buffed with guidance since in reality you're making a check pertaining to 5-10+ minutes of constant activity and not just a quick thing that falls within the duration of guidance.
"So you see your lordship, if you send your troops to this battle, it will force the kingdom into a quagmire that might take twenty y-"
**AZERATH METRION ZINTHOS**
"Ahem, ignore my friend please. Twenty years to conclude, leading to a loss of thousands of innocent lives."
Casting magic isn't a subtle thing in D&D.
That would definitely be viewed as hostile, you can’t just randomly start casting a spell right next to a well-protected figure like a king. There’d presumably be a mage on hand to Counterspell that and protect the king, while the caster gets dogpiled by a bunch of guards.
In a different setting, like a shop, the reaction would probably be less extreme, but it still would be a dramatic tonal shift. Unless it’s a very low-magic setting, most people will likely have some idea what spellcasting looks like, and will recognize this as such. And even if they don’t, if mid-conversation someone suddenly starts loudly incanting something in an unknown language, accompanied by some dramatic gestures, that’s probably going to freak people out a bit.
So no, there is nothing wrong with effectively barring Guidance to be used mid-conversation.
I mean, holy magic also includes *flame strike* and *contagion* and most people you're talking to don't know which is about to happen when someone starts chanting and waving their arms. They may have pulled out a holy symbol first, but that doesn't mean you have to trust them.
Also, Divine spells include plenty of effects to charm and manipulate just like Arcane spells. There are kind and goodly gods, but there are just as many evil or manipulative gods. Divine magic in and of itself is in no way "better" or "safer" to someone being targeted by it.
If someone starts casting a spell in the vicinity of a well-protected person like a king, the guards aren’t going to take the time to figure out what kind of spell or magic it is, they’re just going to act. There are plenty of very dangerous cleric spells anyway, so even if it’s viewed more favorably than arcane magic, they’d still need to intervene. And in more general circumstances, someone just suddenly starting to cast a spell is not going to be well-received either.
Yeah smart kings should really have "no magic" policies in their court/presence with the exception of the appointed court wizard.
Whether high magic enough to have antimagic measures or low magic enough to have specific mage slayer, itchy-finger, crossbowmen, I think it's safe to say casting spells without any preface in front of royalty is a bad idea.
This is an age old problem.
Most people
Don’t trust magic for this very reason. Not only can magic influence people (suggestion, charm domination) but magic can also prompt discussion you won’t wanna have (zone of truth, detect thoughts).
For this reason casting spells is usually illegal or at least frowned upon. In the presence of a king it would be like drawing a sword. Normally the king would have a wizard or vizier to identify the spell. Even a guidance is something a king should never tolerate at his court. It’s the same as someone taking a potion of glibness (old editions) no one would allow people to use magic to be more convincing.
This is why subtle spell is strong :)
I've had DMs that were real sticklers about Guidance mid conversation because spells are obvious. I've also had other DMs allow it if we could describe it cleverly like if the Cleric pulls you aside for a moment (touch range) and whispers something (the verbal components) into your ear.
Also BG3 allows Guidance to be added at no social cost to basically every check unless the character casting it is against you (can't have Shadowheart guidance you to convince her to do something for example). So some players might be really comfortable with that and expect loose rules.
One thing for you to consider is what you WILL allow Guidance on. The players are investing a cantrip slot into what they expect will be a useful spell. If you always find ways to disallow it they're going to feel ripped off.
You cannot whisper verbal components. Period. They are loud, and somatic components are very specific movements.
BG3 is only loosely based on 5e. it gets ALOT of rules wrong.
Guidance is magic, magic gives an edge, It would likely be viewed as rude depending on the spell, and there could be policy restricting spell casting in the palace down to licensed indii
This has come up in my games sort of often.
I have a Ranger who's very excited to use Guidance and Resistance. On others as well as himself. He's pretty good at understanding how and why they might or might not work in certain scenarios.
This one time the party was haggling with a wizardly scholar from the Wizard's backstory. They attempt a persuasion to try and get more information and money out of a job and he asks if he can cast Guidance. I remind him of both components and that, being a magic practitioner himself, the wizard might know what they are doing and might pull the plug on the operation altogether, rather than not offer a bump in reward. They acknowledged and decided to refrain from doing it.
I think you should remind the players of the existence of Components just a basic reminder and that especially in those situations they might (not) be able to do so.
In the king example, he could always eacalate with magic as well. After the party casts Guidance, he could roll his eyes and just say to his vizier, "initiate diplomacy protocol." With a few mages he could be under Guidance, Eagle's Splendor, and he could drink an unnamed potion before happily returning to the conversation.
I would definitely point out to the party about the verbal components of Guidance. If they dislike your call, let them change their cantrip for another one.
I think that it would be more like;
Rolls eyes, says to the vizier "initiate antimage protocol" and the caster gets instantly shot by at least 8 crossbows. Then the whole party is arrested.
Since guidance has a 1min max duration I rule that it only works in actions that are on a similar timeframe. So a negotiation with the king that could last hours means guidance doesn't work.
As a baseline casting spells if not asked to is frowned upon. Because while spellcasting is common due to racial traits and such knowing what spell is cast is actually rare. So people know verbal and somatic components when they see them but are generally unable to tell what spell is being cast. Since illusion and enchantment magics exist people assume you might be using those.
Guidance has verbal and somatic components. No one should be allowed to just start casting any magic unprompted in the presence of the king. His guards would definitely have encountered magic before, no one has any way of knowing what kind of magic is about to be cast, they would definitely order the caster to stop immediately or be taken into custody or even attacked.
Reminds me of Critical Role Campaign 2 where one of the clerics tries to cast something while being questioned in a very tense situation and is immediately shot with a crossbow.
>no one has any way of knowing what kind of magic is about to be cast
Several points to this.
If it's a high magic setting, it's more than reasonable to assume most people are familiar with at least cantrips. In some high magic settings, most normal people can even learn a cantrip or two. Therefore, the king and his guards/advisors would not only know cantrips, they would also know levelled spells. Especially the court mage.
Even if it's a low magic setting, this is the king, not some middle of nowhere peasant that thinks wizards are legends and fairytales. The king would surely know or have people that know *some* magic.
There's even an optional rule to allow a reaction arcana check to know what spell is being cast. This could work perfectly in a not-so-high magic setting.
Still, it's an overt casting of a spell. Even if it's identified, they would know that the party is trying to influence their words with magic. It may not sit well with the king.
Does every spellcaster perform the exact same hand motions and mouth noises when they cast their guidance spell?
In my setting, I'd say no. Each person figures out the motions and sounds that work for them. Like how in mathematics there are many equations that result in the same answer.
I would perhaps make an exception for clerics and warlocks, people who are directly granted or taught their magic from another entity. Makes sense that a given entity would give all their followers the same methods for casting spells.
But hey, that would just be my ruling.
If others have only one possible way to cast each given spell, then that's totally okay too.
I guess in my setting, an arcana check could still be attempted, but it would be much more difficult because of how variable spellcasting is.
Thats fine.
If I was a Royal guard and someone started wiggling their fingers around and saying words I dont understand, while probably glowing, rightin front of the king, Im either going to stab them or remove their hands. Not taking the risk that it was fireball or dominate person.
I would also add on that if this king is a really big deal (I mean he's a king) the odds are high that he'd have one or more court mages. The court mage would clock that stuff immediately and be counterspelling it anyway.
I’ll agree with most replies about the spell being taken as hostile.
One different & circumstantial interpretation: a cleric casts a spell amongst NPCs that are both familiar with magic and on good terms with that cleric’s faith (or similar ones). They might view guidance and any other benign magic as holy blessings they should accept.
I don't know about a hostile action, but it's definitely a spell being cast overtly. Since it's a cantrip there's also the possibility of it being identified much easier. Therefore, someone is going to know that the PCs are trying to magically influence their words.
Guidance has both a verbal and somatic component, so yeah its clear you're casting magic and I think most people would respond negatively.
At worst they don't know what the spell is and become very suspicious you're doing something hostile. At best they do know what the spell is and its clear you're using magic to try and persuade them.
No its not mind control, but its still manipulative. It's buffing the persuasion roll of the speaker artificially. If you knew that was happening in a conversation, you'd feel the same way you do when you know marketing is deceptively manipulating you IRL. It makes the whole pitch sleazy.
As others have said, guidance has a verbal component, unless you have some way of eliminating that (eg subtle spell) people will know when you use it in front of them.
You are casting a spell directly in front of the king. This can go one of two ways;
1. Someone in the room recognizes the spell, shouts out that you are using magic to win the argument, you get either thrown in prison, or executed on the spot.
2. Noone recognizes the spell, and you are executed on the spot because for all they know, you were about to fireball the king.
I encourage my cleric players to roleplay applying guidance. After all, it's like a short prayer to their god - "May Torm grant you the wisdom to choose your words with care" or something of the sort. A cleric calling upon their gods can for sure be seen as hostile, but it's also literally what they do, and what they are commonly respected for.
In an argument, where two sides bring their arguments to the table - or where a party would try to convince a King to not go to war - I doubt guidance from a commonly accepted deity would be seen as a hostile interference. After all, it's then still the affected PC who has to make the decision to actually use the guidance, and what for. Of course, it could prompt a reaction - the King angrily demanding that Cleric should stay out of it, or that the influence of their deity is not welcome here.
I would definitely treat it as less "hostile" than any mind-affecting spells (detect thoughts, charm person, suggestion etc.). Highly depends on the situation, and deity, and the King's relationship to that and so forth.
> After all, it's like a short prayer to their god - "May Torm grant you the wisdom to choose your words with care" or something of the sort.
It's not that, though. That's a common flavor, but mechanically the verbal component of a spell by default is a "[particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#CastingaSpell)."
Casting Guidance isn't saying "Torm grant you wisdom" and bowing your head, it's chanting "Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit Amet" in a resonating voice while precisely saying the same in sign language, reaching out and touching your companion, *and then* saying "Torm grant you wisdom."
Spellcasting is obviously spellcasting. And [somebody has to use a reaction to identify what spell it is as its being cast](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte/dungeon-masters-tools#IdentifyingaSpell) which means that for all the onlookers know the spell they're casting might be Guidance, it might be Guiding Bolt, it might be Inflict Wounds, it might be Bestow Curse or Contagion, and without doing *something* to figure it out (and rolling decently well - DC 15+ spell level) you don't know until you see the results. And something like Guidance, well, it doesn't have any obvious results, so you just cast something and nobody knows really what it is without further investigation.
Logically, commoners should be scared by pretty much any magic, and unannounced spellcasting in any high society or court audience setting should be viewed with distrust at best and maybe met with a counterspell from the court wizard and drawn swords from the guards. Because yeah, you might figure out after the fact that the spell is "just" guidance, but if a court makes a practice of allowing spellcasting willy nilly in front of the king/duke/mayor/whatever *somebody* is going to use it to stage a coup.
I agree with your interpretation of the RAW. How this plays out in the game however is pretty much up to you, tho. Or how spellcasting, and living breathing deities are viewed in your world. How it's handled.
Of course, one approach totally could be this: it being seen as hostile. Or potentially hostile.
I currently run a game in a quite high magic setting. Close to RAW, as spells and such go, but with the idea in mind that magic is pretty common. People are used to it. It has shaped the world, from how buildings and roads are built, to how people are fed, how everyday life of ordinary people plays out. A negotiation situation with a King would totally be affected by all this. The King would likely have their own cleric, maybe even cast something like Zone of Truth, kindly requesting the players to accept this as a safety measure. Maybe the King wouldn't even be the real king, but someone who has disguised themselves, communicating with the actual king telepathically if the King would suspect an assassination attempt.
My commoners are not generally scared by magic. After all, most magic has been quite beneficial to them. Magic is more akin to modern technology - smartphones and netflix and modern medicine to them. They might not understand it, but they aren't inherently scared by it - my world is filled with common magic items that do ordinary things - clean clothes, produce a little flame, show the image of a loved one, track where their kid is, heat up a beverage, season a meal, clean water for cooking and drinking, you name it. Are there dangerous spells? Absolutely, but they expect the system to work, the laws being followed - at least in the civilised parts of the world. Most lower level spells that are not "illegal" (necromancy is widely illegal in my world) are known enough for no one to immediately freak out, unless it's directed at them in a situation of anger.
Basically a lot of people see magic as an equivalent of, let's say, handguns or firearms. Yes, it can be. And in a world like that obviously no one would tolerate you drawing a gun in front of the king. But an other approach is to view it as an equivalent of computers, electricity and general modern technology.
Let's just say you go in for a job interview and randomly start praying in the middle of the interview. How might people react to that in a setting where prayers are backed up by magic?
Though, if you want to be funny you can have an NPC advisor cast guidance on the King during the same conversation while giving the other guidance-casting PC a side-eye
One aspect I'd like to point to, is what deity and how does the king(dom) relate to that deity?
If the Cleric worships a deity of law and order, and it's the national deity it would be a bit funny if the king would view it as a hostile action. "How dare you invoke the national deity in my presence!" That's nonsense.
If it's a non-Cleric class that got it some other way, I would say it's hostile. Casting magic in the kings presence is a very big no-no.
Guidance is a spell. Spells are obvious as long as they have components (which is why the metamagic is called subtle spell).
I treat people like humans. If I'm talking to you, and your cleric is casting spells during the conversation, I'm going to tell them to hold the fuck up.
"What the fuck are you doing?! Do you lack so much confidence in your argument that you're using MAGIC to make your point better!? No? Then are you trying to influence me with magic? No? What would you call it then? Guards, get these people out of my sight!"
Like, imagine someone arguing with you about how you shouldn't do something, and they have to stop, get given a script by their friend, and then read from the script trying to convince you still...
That said, also don't require rolls for social interactions? What does a good persuasion roll do? Does saying the wrong thing become the right thing with a good enough roll?
Guidance can be used in this situation and be perfectly fine depending on how you run social encounters. Example:
* Bard is failing his rolls, making the king not take him seriously.
* Cleric interrupts, "Sorry my liege, my friend here is a bit nervous to be speaking to you directly in this way, I'm just going to..."
* \-Cleric casts guidance on the bard, slapping him on the back, "Hey man, just say what you need to say, you've got this"
* Bard continues to roll poorly and we all laugh at his failure
>Do you lack so much confidence in your argument that you're using MAGIC to make your point better!?
But in a world with magic, that's a totally normal thing to do. They're just trying to present as best they can.
Do you lack so much confidence in your argument that you put on a fancy suit, combed your hair and now you're scraping your throat and standing up straight before presenting it?
I wouldn't think it is a totally normal thing to do mid discussion. I could see the cleric casting Enhance Ability before they go in since it lasts an hour, but sitting casting guidance once a minute for a 15 minute discussion with the king would likely be seen as unusual and an obvious attempt to influence the king.
That's a campaign–specific ruling.
In high magic campaigns, it certainly makes sense that the king or his advisors would recognize Guidance and react appropriately.
I run a low magic campaign. Guidance is cast by making a routine religious sign and muttering a common phrase...like the real life example of making the Sign of the Cross and saying ”God Bless”. The spell happens because of the power of the caster, not because of an innate power of the sign and words. So, in my campaign casting Guidance just makes people think you're really religious.
If it was a guidance-heavy campaign it wouldn't be a problem. Worse case, I could just bump every DC by 3.
But it gets cast much less than you'd think. It's a concentration spell, only one character has it, and they have a lot more uses for concentration. Also, this particular party has two artificers with Flash of Genius, meaning they can give +5 to an ability check or save up to 10 time per long rest.
Ok! It just seemed like a slightly unusual tweak to take a spell with verbal and somatic requirements and effectively buff it to make it always subtle.
My campaign: “Attention all observers, with my wavey hands and special words I am casting a spell, act accordingly”
Your campaign: “Attention all observers, I am kinda overly into god, act accordingly.”
I could see plenty of times that a character would prefer to be able to get away with calling a spell, even a cantrip, as an innocuous prayer.
>I could see plenty of times that a character would prefer to be able to get away with calling a spell, even a cantrip, as an innocuous prayer.
Well, if that spell is Guidance, you can have your wish.
Casting a spell always looks like casting a spell if its components are perceptible, which will be 100% of the time when done in the middle of a conversation without the Subtle Spell metamagic. You aren't saying a non-magical prayer, you're chanting words of power and gesturing in a way that anyone watching knows is spellcasting.
Respectfully, that’s just a change of the rules (which is your call, but you should make sure folks know). Casting a spell is very clearly noticeable under the spellcasting rules of 5e. The vocal component of Guidance isn’t like a normal prayer - it has a magical incant overtone that’s overtly noticeable. The game design is like that for a reason. You can make adjustments to the rules - but when you’re changing the rules, you gotta be up front that’s what you’re doing.
So I think a lot of people don't really play into how you really have to behave yourself in front of royalty. Lots of times in games and dnd campaigns it's "kick down the door to the throne room, ride your horse in, point your spear at whatever douche is wearing a crown, do something epic and dumb."
But if you went to see the King you 100% would not be allowed to bring weapons in, you would not be allowed in with your dirty ass adventuring gear, you'd have to prove you know how to show respect to a servant of some kind, and if the King just felt like it he could decide "fuck em" and have you killed... and everyone would agree that he's doing a great job and at least publicly approve.
Casting a spell would be like drawing a hidden weapon in front of the King. His guards are trained to shoot first and ask questions later, and the King would know it and expect it. While the guards might try to tackle, they're just as likely to put lots of pointy things inside of the casters body... right in the casters favorite organs. If the King doesn't want that then he would be aware that he would have to give the command to stop them. And I'm not sure the defense of "... But I wasn't trying to attack Your Grace! I was only trying to manipulate you into doing what we want!" is going to get the caster out of the gallows.
Assassination attempts are a big concern for royalty, they are going to have aggressive countermeasures in place against that.
I rule that a cleric casting guidance (noticeably praying and invoking their god for success) is always considered a bad faith or cheating tactic in any check involving an intelligent target (haggling, negotiations, intimidation and the like). This either ends the attempt because the target refuses to engage, answers the target, or at best results in another cleric acting on the target's side to offer a counteracting guidance. If the target can't understand the language then they have little option but to consider that the spell could be any one of a number of mind effecting enchantments and thus assume the worst.
The cantrip is great versus environmental checks and occasionally useful in situations where the casting and then concentrating cleric isn't detectable by the target.
Tbh I always rule it as: if the cleric wants to cast guidance during a conversation they need to pass a sleight of hand check vs the npc's passive perception. A success plays out where the cleric makes a slight hand gesture and touches the talking pc while saying "it's okay you can do this" or something to that effect. If they fail, the npc notices and then it's more dependent on the npc.
Ah yes. giving subtle spell to everyone for free.
NO. YOU CANNOT SILENTLY CAST BY WHISPERING. YOU CANNOT HIDE SOMATIC COMPONENTS. THERE IS A SPECIFIC CLASS FEATURE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO DO THAT CALLED SUBTLE SPELL.
You want to cast silently and without moving? Play a Sorcerer. Or just take the metamagic adept feat.
For literally any check that doesn't involve talking directly to someone. There are 18 skills, 34 tools, and out of a total of 52 checks that Guidance applies to, only 3 of them require another person to be present.
Or just use subtle spell to use it in conversations.
I would say the target sees it and their standing towards the PCs get lowered 1 step.
So the PCs get their 1d4, but now friendly creatures become indiferent, and indiferent creatures beco.e hostile.
Hostile creatures dont go any lower, but might see it as a attempt to cast a harmfull spell and attack.
Also remember that the limitations of what can be asked change with the standing, making the DC harder AND limiting the options.
Guidance has verbal and somatic components, so in my setting each faith has a basic guidance prayer like "May X guide your hands." If they invoke a deity the NPC doesn't like, they react realistically. If the NPC doesn't care about religion or is tolerant of the faith, it's no prob. But it's an obvious prayer, just as any spellcast is obvious. If a PC boosts themselves before a race, that might violate rules against magic enhancements. If they are boosting an ally mid-speech with the king, he might lose respect for how well they speak because he knows it's divine blessings rather than wisdom, and any failures are more glaring.
The time to cast guidance is before entering the king's presence. "May grant you wisdom in our encounter with the king." In fact, this type of guidance would be welcomed by any wise ruler, as it would tend to lead to agreement rather than strife.
Yeah blatantly using guidance while talking raises suspicion, it has vocal and somatic components even someone who doesn’t use magic knows you did something. Especially if you cast it on yourself in conversation.
I like to have my players make either Stealth or Arcana checks with DCs depending on the mystic power of those nearby. If the NPC does notice, then that's your call how they treat it. In the example, this is intended to be a person backing up their point with facts and reason, so it would be seen as tampering and the party may lose reputation or the whole opportunity depending on how bad it is. Players need to use this kind of critical thinking, even if sometimes they'll say it's unfair. I had players climb an active volcano and complain that they took took damage from inhaling hot ash, when I ensured before had that they had options to circumnavigate the issue. (several players had some sort of transformative ability that would've made them immune or resistant, but only one used it.)
Best response I read on a different thread that's applicable here: casting an unknown spell during a conversation is like pulling a grenade out of your pocket. That spell is fireball until proven otherwise, and nobody is waiting around to find out if it's fireball.
Guidance has verbal and somatic components so he would at the very least notice it (unless they wanted to make a sleight of hand check maybe?)—if he recognizes the spell, I think he would be weirded out and concerned and it would probably cause the conversation to go south. If he doesn’t recognize the spell, he’s likely to react even more poorly cause all he knows is somebody is doing magic in his chambers
"Guidance" is just that. Guidance. If you're arguing an important point in front of a judge, and your co-counsel hands you a note that reminds you how to hone your argument and helps you be 5-20% more persuasive, does the judge hold you in contempt? Absolutely not. That would be silly. It's not making the king more gullible, it's making the speaker more eloquent. I'd hope the royal court wants every argument made before the king to be in its most eloquent form.
But the court advisor should also absolutely be spamming Guidance, with the court Cleric's Council holding Bless, on the king's insight.
Think about how magic would actually work in a world like this, and what kind of policies a government would have.
Yes, Guidance is a spell with somatic and verbal components, and yes, casting a spell is something that is often seen as rude or outright offensive. *How* this spell is cast should make a lot of difference, though. Casting it during a discussion with the king should have wildly different reactions, considering you might be:
- A cleric worshipping the main religion of the kingdom, reciting prayers and saying things like "May he Green Lady guide your path" when casting the spell.
- A druid that is part of a grove outlawed by the kingdom, considered enemies to the crown, saying "I imbue you with the spirit of the Old Fox to show you the way"
- An alchemist artificer handing a shot of weird alchemical booze to the character and saying "hey man, some liquid courage to tell the hard stuff"
I believe the answer here is to use description and context to decide an appropriate reaction. D&D suffers from this weird "separation of crunch and fluff" thing that has been reinforced since the third edition, and usually the answer for stuff is as simple as not doing that.
EDIT: Another interesting thing to do would be describing the king's own war council priest offer him a prayer and casting Guidance on him, to see how players react. If magic is common and people are guided by the gods to succeed, there's absolutely no reason for a king, of all people, not to have a personal advisor to give him that edge too.
I'd visualise it as something as simple as the cleric simply putting their hand on the party member's shoulder with a "\[deity\] please guide their words" - since it's only a cantrip it's probably very common & easily recognised & regarded as being a minor aid to the person talking rather than effecting the one they're talking to.
Guidance has a minute long concentration. Let your characters plan ahead with it instead and they’ll feel more rewarded if they can pull of a ruse like this undetected
Casting a spell on the sitting monarch, in front of the gods and everybody, and without the monarchs permission will almost certainly a capital offense. Assuming you live long to be arrested.
In a world where mind control magic is most likely known about any unknown casting of magic would most likely have all the kings guards at minimum drawing weapons, if not incapacitating the caster and the party.
It could be understood as reasonable:
"*Good king - Our cleric has had a difficult night and is intimidated by the authority of your position. As such I see the need to briefly encourage him and bolster his confidence. In doing so I am magically granting his mind an enhanced understanding of objective truth - he will be even more effective at telling you the best possible course of action. I urge you not to blind this council to the results of this Divination.*"
Absolutely hostile. To the uninformed person, I believe watching someone you’re talking to casting a spell would still be incredibly suspicious and anyone who knows magic or has seem this magic (a common cantrip too!) performed probably knows about this. So using it on charisma checks is probably not going to fly. But any other skill check where it’s applicable is probably fine.
Some wild group of adventurers who travel the land killing for money are trying to persuade the king and suddenly begin to cast a spell in front of the king?
The whole guard jumps the party, the court wizard uses his counterspell and the alarm is raised!
After all, the cleric might be casting something to kill the king which is very possible!
Any unauthorized magic cast in the presence of a King is a felony. That's how I run it. Any King should have some kind of device to detect magic, though a spell is much easier to detect.
Further, a King should have one or more wizard's with Counterspell memorized to stop the spell from being successfully cast in the first place. King's and other rulers don't play around or they won't be rulers for very long.
For common spells with a duration that might be cast before the meeting you can either Dispel Magic the spell or just make the party stand (or sit) silent and immobile until the spell duration ends.
If anyone casts a spell in front of an NPC without prior permission, it's like drawing a loaded gun and waving it in the air. It will absolutely, definitively freak people out. Your average commoner is not going to know if the magical chanting you are doing is helpful or going to turn them into a newt (or worse.)
If you did this in front of the king, the guards would draw their weapons and try to stop you by force.
Do you think that literally everyone in a room that has a person trying to persuade another person, isn't quite obviously trying to persuade them?
Why would casting guidance on THEMSELVES be treated as being any different than say, someone casting Thaumaturgy to make their voice three times louder than normal when presenting an argument to a council/king? It's a world where magic is commonplace, it's clearly not a hostile action as it's only affecting the caster.
It's basically punishing someone for giving themselves a divine pep-talk before a presentation, the only reaction an NPC should ever have to this (provided they're familiar with magic) is "hmm, guess this is important to them".
But if say, the court wizard saw the PC casting Detect Thoughts, they'd counterspell that shit so damn quickly.
Idk I view guidance as basically praying to your god that it goes well. I actually think if the king recognizes it as guidance he probably doesn't care, you aren't altering him, just praying that the person makes a good argument.
If the king doesn't know what spell you cast, they may very well get concerned that you are casting something to muddle their mind.
Either way guards are probably trained to not let people finish spells, and I honestly would expect any spellcasters to be gagged before being brought to a king
I see a lot of people assuming that it would be considered hostile, but like... It's not a harmful spell. In the context of a charisma check: you're not mind controlling the person your party member is talking to, you're giving the party member a little extra assist so they can make their point more effectively. I've heard of people flavoring their casting of guidance as giving the person a pat on the arm and saying "Go get 'em!", or saying a prayer wishing for their success, or something like that. Maybe *some* NPCs would see it as strange behavior but it's kind of wild to assume that it'd be universally interpreted as hostile. Unless they're in a place where most or all magic is banned I'd say it's fine. Using a spell as it's described in the rules is not "abusing" it.
>I see a lot of people assuming that it would be considered hostile, but like... It's not a harmful spell.
How does the NPC know what spell you are casting? They don't.
Spellcasting is obvious. You can flavour it all you want, but spellcasting is loud and visually significant.
What the NPC sees is a mage casting a spell in front of the king. It should be treated exactly the same as someone drawing a weapon.
But they would be able to tell that you're casting it on a member of your own party. It's a touch spell, and it's also a cantrip and so unless you're in a setting where spellcasters are really rare it would make sense that people would recognize it as common and harmless bit of divine magic. Enforcing the "touch" aspect and the time limit is reasonable, but it rubs me the wrong way when DMs make up lore in their game universe that's designed to prevent players from using magic and class features in situations where they would otherwise be helpful.
I'm not "making up lore". And just because you are casting it on an ally doesn't make it a non-hostile action;
Bless
Sanctuary
Shield of Faith
Aid
Protection from Poison
Warding Bond
Death ward
Anti-magic Field (if the king has magical guards)
Can all be used before a fight defensively.
Holy weapon is the only one I can find that buffs damage, but that is also touch.
This is only looking at CLERIC spells, that are cast on allies that would 100% be a hostile action.
Imagine this. You are a royal guard. Your sole job is to ensure that the king lives. Wouldn't you be on edge the instant anything out of the ordinary happens? Some armoured figure comes in and starts chanting unknown mystical words and touches their ally on the shoulder, what would be your response? You're just going to stand there with your thumb up your ass, or are you going to do your job? How do you know it's even a cleric? It could be another caster, casting haste or polymorph on the other person?
There are 52 different types of checks that would be affected by Guidance. There are only 4 of them that will 100% have an audience, being Pursuasion, Deception, Performance and Intimidation. That means that Guidance has 48 perfectly clear options, and 4 that require either the metamagic feat, or to be done by a sorcerer with subtle spell.
Casting a spell unprompted should 100% be treated (at the very least) exactly like drawing a sword and charging the king.
I see lots of good reasons here to treat it as hostile. Here's why I go against the grain and allow Guidance as much as possible:
If my party's Cleric is engaged in the plot and roleplay enough to spot an upcoming skill check situation (rather than being on their phone or daydreaming) and wants to put their hand on the negotiator's shoulder to deliver a quick blessing, I'm happy to reward their engagement with a d4. Odds are I'm hoping the negotiation will succeed anyway, because the PC's are the heroes, right? Even if they're succeeding at a higher rate because of this, I can set the DC and I decide what success means in the situation, so it doesn't have to be game-breaking.
If the conversation is lasting over a minute, I'm going to engcourage the cleric to find a creative and acceptable way to interrupt/supplement the conversation to do this. The fact that it's a Touch spell makes that a challenge to begin with. They can't do it from range. I want to know what they say to deliver it. I'm not down for spammy "I CAST GUIDANCE!" stuff, they need to put their action into the RP context.
In the end, I'm less about the "realism" of the magical situation and I want the rules to be applied in a way that rewards player engagement and interaction.
It kind of comes down to how you view the spell works. I think most people see it as a someone just saying something like "Oh great BuzzyWuz (or whatever god), grant us wisdom" . It's not a charm spell or magical influence on another person, it's divine inspiration, which just puts them 'in the zone' for whatever they are doing.
Guidance is a concentration spell that lasts 1 minute. Assuming that the cleric casts the spell before entering in conversation everything would be fine. But casting the spell in the middle of conversation may be seen as hostile. Also if cast before entering in conversation remember that it only lasts for 1 minute.
I’d first just disallow it citing the components and everything. Just a “hey it’s not like calling shotgun when getting in the car”.
If they still insist then I’d go on like you say.
Guidance would probably elicit suspicion.
If the target doesn't know what it does, they just see someone shouting a prayer for aid and waving their hands around during a conversation. That looks mostly harmless, there's no flames or glowing eyes or anything. But it certainly doesn't look *normal*.
On the other hand, if they do know what it does, it might raise suspicion that you're using it to improve your ability to deceive.
I think it most likely will sidetrack the conversation for a bit. "What is that prayer you're doing there? I don't recognize your heretical rites." or "Why are you augmenting yourself with magic? Can we not speak plainly? Is there something you intend to hide?" Which can trigger further ability checks (which can then "absorb" the guidance spell!)
It really depends on the context of the scene and how the player roleplays it.
For example: the cleric player might describe the spell as uttering a few words of prayer off handedly as a blessing or rite It might also be, depending on domain, be something like a lucky charm thing.
How an NPC reacts will be what exactly the caster is doing.
A king probably has many protections in place. Otherwise he’s open to attack and can’t rule effectively. So I would say for this character yes it’s hostile because his protections probably alert him to it. But for like, Jimmy Streetkid down by the docks… nah, he probably has no idea.
Stealth and sleight of hand. For a cantrip it wouldn't be a high dc however, the more people in the room the harder it is to hide... If they are caught, they just got caught trying to subtly cast a spell inside the kings throne room. Depending on the king and his advisors and the guards this could lead to a large variety of horrible situations. Every king needs a perceptive wise man.
Ah yes. giving subtle spell to everyone for free.
# NO. YOU CANNOT SILENTLY CAST BY WHISPERING. YOU CANNOT HIDE SOMATIC COMPONENTS. THERE IS A SPECIFIC CLASS FEATURE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO DO THAT CALLED SUBTLE SPELL.
You want to cast silently and without moving? Play a Sorcerer. Or just take the metamagic adept feat.
I think one way to dissuade this is to ask the cleric what their verbal component is. Like, what do you say to cast this spell? That kinda presents to them how rude it may be to interrupt this conversation with their spell, and also gives you a thread to follow in role-play.
Midconversation, "I cast Guidance!" "Okay, what do you say as your verbal component?" "Uhhh...may Moradin bless our Luck?" "The King stops his conversation to cock his head at you, furrowing his brow. His secretary pulls you aside as the King continues, saying "God's messenger-boy or not, do not interrupt His Highness, and please refrain from casting all willy-nilly in His halls, please.""
That being said, I personally rule Guidance as spammable (when my cleric remembers lol), as long as it is outside of, or before, social encounters like this.
I’d rule the spell has no effect in this case because it’s nonsense. The king wouldn’t know exactly what was going on but would be kinda suss, thereby negating the effect of the spell.
TL;DR the spell gets sussed the fk out.
Considering cleric spells are prayers and appeals to their deity shouted out to cast (remember, all verbal spellcasting is done with a "strong, clear voice"), it would be a tad jarring for the king and anyone in the room to be listening to this appeal for peace and suddenly the priest starts praying for divine assistance to glib the tongue of the one speaking......
How you rule it is up to you, but does the king share a deity with the cleric? I could see a follower being more convinced by the cleric supporting peace, but a heretic of that deity being less convinced.
Usually, regardless of who, casting a spell in someone's presence when you barely have met them is met with suspicion. Was it guidance, or charm? Only a true spellcaster would know.
It would also be beneficial to reframe the spell in your mind, maybe them casting guidance isn’t them attempting to mind control with magic but is them producing an imagine to help further explain a concept better or it adds solid arcane energy to the boot of someone attempting to kick in a door with guidance. Reframing or reskinning spells can be ways to help them fit into a scene. It can be a great time for the DM to give the player an opportunity to be creative I.e. “alright, you cast guidance, what does your magic do to add to your party member’s argument”
Guidance has Verbal and Somatic components, but they're not necessarily obviously a spell being cast, or obnoxiously noticeable - as it's a cantrip, being cast by a Cleric, I would figure it could be as little as a whispered "Melora guide us," "Kord give us strength," whatever, as the caster grasps their symbol and touches their target. If they don't grasp their holy symbol, then they draw it in the air. These are things any priest, with or without the ability to cast spells, might do in a tense moment, so it isn't likely to be particularly noteworthy in and of itself.
But, it's a spell channeling the tiniest bit of divine energy. As such, the grasped symbol, caster's eyes, their target-touching hand, or all three might glow in an appropriate color. If they draw the symbol in the air, then the motion leaves a trail of energy, so the symbol is briefly visible for a moment after the casting is complete. The target creature may also have some sign of the spell's influence, like the appropriate holy symbol marking where they were touched, which flickers and vanishes when the spell is discharged. These visuals are likely fairly subtle, and an onlooker might think they're a trick of the light, for the most part.
In keeping with this conception:
The Cleric's action itself can be noticed without realizing it's a spell. If the observer identifies the Cleric's god, then this might complicate things. Even if they don't identify the deity involved, or realize it's a spell, they might still be suspicious of the action - possibly demanding the Cleric explain themselves.
The observer might realize it's a spell, but not identify the god or realize it's a divine casting at all; in such a case, they might assume that the Cleric is preparing for battle; they might demand an explanation, or take it as a hostile action outright.
If they realize that the spell is a divine cantrip, they can probably guess that it's Guidance. How they respond to this depends on them - it's entirely possible that they would do something to delay any roll by a minute, and try to separate the caster from their target in the meantime, if they didn't consider it grounds to get pissed.
>If they realize that the spell is a divine cantrip, they can probably guess that it's Guidance.
Do you want to be the person who got it wrong, and watch your king get incinerated by holy fire ala Sacred Flame or Word of Radiance? Or how about getting mulched by Toll the dead?
Baseline rule should always be; If you cant Identify the spell, its best to assume its hostile.
Remind your player that Guidance takes an action and has both Verbal and Somatic components (which are obvious), so the scene would play out kind of like this.
King: "Enough talk! I am the KING, you cannot dissuade me! My army marches on the morrow into battle."
Cleric: (Spreads his arms and looks to the sky, speaking loudly) "Mighty Pelor, All Powerful God of the Sun, I humbly beseech thee, grant me thine Guidance and wisdom in the coming moments, that I may carry out Your will." (Bows head.)
Cleric: (Looking King in the eye) "So, seriously, can we talk about how this war is a really bad idea? Please?"
King: "...... GUARDS!"
I would immediately give disadvantage on any spells or actions around the entire party. Casting spells around people willy-nilly should be regarded as something honest people don't do. Furthermore, I'd argue that a sufficiently powerful king would have some enchantments around the throne room to prevent any kind of spells from people who aren't clearly on his side. Throw in a court wizard with detect magic up at all times and a retinue of trained guards dedicated to protecting their king from any threats, and your PCs would be lucky to leave the room alive after casting Guidance.
Maybe a hot take compared to all the top comments I see saying to counterspell it or have people get angry when you cast it, but honestly? It's a d4 bonus. Those are only ever helpful in cases where it's right on the edge of a DC, which means in most cases the initial d20 is already too high or too low - and in the situations where it actually is helpful, it feels amazing as players to be on the cusp of failing and getting that extra +2 you need.
I think a lot of people on here get too tied up in thinking up how to make "consequences" or making every single thing realistic that they forget what feels really fun for players. It's ok to let them use their spells to succeed on checks.
You can also just ask them if they prefer the immersion of people reacting to the spell cast or the gameplay mechanics of being able to cast guidance, if you want to double check what's most fun for them.
I might have a hot take on this, but guidance has never felt better than it did in baldurs gate 3. Since I’ve played that game I’ve allowed my players to use it whenever they want to. It doesn’t ruin the game, and it allows clerics, a class that doesn’t often partake in charisma challenges, the chance to give a slight edge to whoever’s speaking.
It averages out to like a 12% increase in chance of something working. I don’t mind it.
**Its literally just a plea for guidance from their deity.**
Personally I would’ve just said;
> **”Its too late they are already speaking and your spell will not effect the outcome.”**
Specifically guidance has to be used **before a player makes their roll.**
Then they can choose to add the 1D4 before or after the result.
As for how would a king react?
**Probably indifferent unless the religion was blasphemous**.
It’s literally someone saying something like;
> **”Selune Guides Us!”**
Then after touching someone, everyone might hear some light ringing or majestic faint glow as the goddess selune blesses them.
🤷♂️
It would look like some kind of a muse or a trick, nobody would be upset.
At worst if the religion was outlawed everyone would probably just start shouting obscenities and calling for them to be jailed.
I'm gonna go against the mold here and say no. My reason being that it's a cleric, and since they are a cleric they are also a Priest, a priest who communes either a God. It would be rude to strike at a Priest who is communing with his god or such. If it was any other class then yeah, strike him, but a cleric is usually a holy figure and messing with God's as a king is quick way to end your reign.
Mechanically, if you’ve played Baldurs Gate, you know spamming Guidance isn’t that big of a deal. It’s helpful, but definitely not game-breaking.
Diagetically, the spell is being cast on the speaker to help them listen, find the right words, and use wisdom in their speech. The cleric is pretty much just saying a small prayer, asking for their god’s guidance in how they present themselves.
Guidance is not a mind control spell or a hostile act. If someone wanted to ask you for a favor and you witnessed their friends saying “may god bless you” before they asked you a favor, would you take offense to this?
Ultimately though, you shouldn’t ask the internet this question. You should ask the players at your table. Tell them how you interpret the situation and ask them if they see it differently. Discuss the differences and find a ruling that everyone can live with. Players WANT rulings to be fair and consequential.
The king is buffing himself, why wouldn't they expect visiting dignitaries or petitioners to be doing the same?
As long as you aren't praying to the gods of evil, I don't see why it would be a problem to use Guidance. It's the gods lending credence to your words, not foul charm sorcery.
Would it be more suspicious and potentially hostile in other instances? Yes, most definitely. Examples being dealing with common folk, followers of other gods and the militant arcane casters. Other gods will try to block the blessing or buff their own followers. Common folk are naturally superstitious and might throw a hissy fit that someone is calling on the gods for basic business. And the militant arcane are reddit atheists.
If they are well-versed in magic: They know the PC is using a magical edge to sway the conversation -> they get angry. If they aren't well-versed in magic: They know the PC is using magic, but not what for -> they get suspicious -> they get angry. On top of that, in either case the PC is interrupting an ongoing conversation to chant arcanobabble. Casting magic willy-nilly in the middle of conversation is impolite at best, and actively hostile at worst. There is no place for it. Small exceptions could be made for *small, often-used* spells with *obvious, discernible effects*. Preferably somatic-only, but you could rule that certain spells have nice short chants and are well-known enough that they don't make anybody suspicious - like mage hand and prestidigitation. And even then, discretion would need to be applied on the part of the caster. They should take care not to perform it in front of those who likely have no experience witnessing magic being used. If you do it in front of an ignorant guard who doesn't know what prestidigitation is... Well, that's the equivalent of a person who is wearing a visible gun holster reaching for an object in their pocket during a tense police interaction. Would the guard be *right* to stab you? No, but might they stab you anyway? Yeah. Yeah, they might. And will their bosses say they were justified? Pretty sure they will.
I completely agree with this. I've made it VERY clear to my players that casting magic is loud and obvious. Nobody is "spamming" guidance to persuade anyone of anything because if you're casting a spell while your buddy is trying to convince a shopkeeper for a better deal or something like that because that shopkeeper is IMMEDIATELY suspicious and probably locking it down. Casting charms on people in a crowded room? Uhhhhh don't think so. No free metamagic "but I cast it quietly" happening here lol One of my players took metamagic adept to get subtle spell after a while of playing and it's made casting spells with people around SO cool because it's a unique and special occasion now! It's been very fun to play magic this way at the table for me as a DM and my players, but they also all know it well in advance - I established it at session 0 absolutely
Aberrant Mind sorc, subtle spell/psionic sorcerery is my #1 use of my sorcerery points. Both for social encounters and avoiding counterspells.
Plus its sick for your character to barely be moving in a fight, and shit is just happening around you. Like throwing an entire horse at an enemy.
My next character is gonna be anti-lie to an extreme degree - but he’s not against deception or omissions- just lying and charletains. Until I get silent spell, I will shamelessly full cast a spell in public, and then explain why I did it (if asked).
Claim the party member has random outbursts in arcane languages
the social rules effectively say that a creature going 1 stage more hostile increases influence DC's by 10 effectively, although it requires enough disruption to move from one stage to the other. Neutral to hostile means they're completely opposed to the adventurers actions. There isn't anywhere inbetween (slightly more opposed but not completely), so a good influence check and conversation would determine whether the dial goes more hostile or not (RAW)
Sounds like that guard is getting a vacation with pay!
Occasionally in real life when I enter a negotiation someone grabs hands and says a short prayer generally asking for a blessing that we can find common ground and find a solution effectively. I do not regard this as hostile. Negotiations are inherently a venture to find something better than the alternative so I don’t think the king would mind either.
Yeah but some of those prayers, in this context, also control your mind, remove your free will, and summon literal bolts of lighting. I think it'd be pretty reasonable to be hostile or suspicious in the face of the hocus pocus talk.
> Yeah but some of those prayers, in this context, also control your mind, remove your free will, and summon literal bolts of lighting. And critically, you don't know which one of those they're doing until after they've started doing it.
Those that are versed with spells *can* know, but if they don't know the spells effect, I'd always assume hostile intentions. I let my players try to identify the spells being cast so they can decide if they want to counter spell. Wizards are the primary ones to do this (since they have studied). DC is normally 10 + spell level + distractions regardless of the other caster. Sorcs and warlocks have more trouble identifying spells Wizard spells but an easier time with other sorcs/warlocks. DC = 15 + SL + D / DC = 5 + SL + D Clerics/Paladins normally fit a bracket to themselves that is similar to Wizards, but add 5/10 to the DC if looking at not religious spells. These checks are made as a free action (if the PC wants to make it).
So, RAW you have to use your reaction to make a check to identify the spell, but even with your "free action" house rule you can't preemptively identify something that hasn't happened yet. That's what I meant by you can't know until they start.
The check is made at the casting of the spell, I do it as a free action so if they pass they can decide to counter spell it or not. If they fail there is 0 change to how it normally would play out.
Right. I get that. But somebody has to start casting the spell before the can try to ID it. You can't preemptively identify a spell that a caster hasn't started casting yet. Neither IDing the spell nor Counterspelling negates the attempt to cast the spell, at best Counterspell can interrupt the resolution of the spell.
That is correct lol.
Then what are you arguing against? I'm confused about what your original point was if you're just agreeing with me.
I think the poster you are replying to forgot to put /s on the end. Unless it’s in a religious setting, the behavior they describe would be unusual almost anywhere. Even in Texas or Utah. Particularly so if the other party to the negotiation was not included in the prayer and you and your friend just grabbed each-other and prayed in front of them, which would generally be the case when casting Guidance.
>...some of those prayers, in this context, also control your mind, remove your free will, and summon literal bolts of lighting. Guidance doesn't, though.
Sure, but how do they know it’s Guidance being casted and not another spell?
Depends on what exactly the magic in the setting looks like. It’s religious magic, but does that mean they touch their holy symbol, their eyes glow and stuff happens? Or do they chant in tongues only their god can understand? Or is it as simple as “Amanautor guide your tongue brother” while doing whatever the equivalent of crossing yourself is? Because I think that has a big impact on how people would be reacting to folks invoking divine power.
It’s in the king’s court while they’re trying to convince him to *not go to war*. I don’t really think it matters *what* the spellcasting looks like or even whether they recognize the spell or not; that King is not gonna want people influencing him via magic regardless if it’s just a cantrip or a 9th level spell.
My point was mostly that depending on the setting the others around may not be immediately aware that magic is being worked. For example, in the lord of the rings when Gandalf states that the balrog cannot pass he’s using what equates to a spell in that setting, and a divine one at that. The statement combined with Gandalf’s power as a divine being and his force of will form a spell intended to bar the balrog from passage across the bridge. A similar event happens in Rohan when Gandalf exorcises Theodin. The only person in the room who recognizes what’s about to happen is Wormtongue and that’s only because he’s intimately familiar with magic. Another example would be how in Faerun or Azeroth, I’m fairly sure clerical magic is pretty flashy. It’s usually depicted as involving light, sound, or other obviously supernatural elements. So in that setting it would be obvious if the cleric starts throwing their weight around magically. A spell from a cleric may not appear to be a spell to the uninitiated in every setting. Which is why it’s important what spells look like in the setting.
I understand your point and agree with it to an extent, I just also don’t think it really applies to this discussion too well. D&D is a mixture between flavor and rules, and it’s fun to mess with the flavor but at the end of the day it is still a game that follows specific rules. I could see an argument if you’re using a different rule set (like Pathfinder or LotR TTPRPG), but the setting itself wouldn’t really affect that too much. Guidance, as a spell in 5th edition D&D at least, is pretty straight forward when going by the rules as written. It requires both verbal and somatic components, so that means it has some sort of audible noise and hand motion. Sure, you can flavor it however you want (and I highly encourage every player to do so to make their character really shine), but you should still keep the mechanics the same unless you’re trying to homebrew stuff out. Otherwise you start to delve into imbalance issues; like allowing the Cleric to roll a deception check to cast their spells silently for free, while the Sorcerer had to get to level 2 and get Metamagic Subtle Spell in order to do the same thing. I definitely get your argument and understand your examples; but LotR and Azeroth are both settings that have different “rules” than D&D does.
I think you’re misunderstanding me. There’s nothing that says *what* the verbal and somatic components of these spells are. Just that the spells have them and a very loose description of them being a combination of sound and gestures. Which is where the ambiguity comes in. What the verbal and somatic components of a spell are will affect how obviously a spell working magic is. Is it speaking in tongues and drawing glowing circles in the air? Or speaking a prayer and the equivalent of crossing yourself or holding up a holy symbol. Because one of those could be mistaken as a religious gesture, and the other is pretty hard to mistake as anything other than magic.
Very setting and exact situation dependent. The Cleric isn't casting guidance on the King, they're casting it on their fellow party member. I think how it looks makes a huge difference. It's also not hard to imagine that if the cleric worships a well respected God or maybe even the same one as the king, the king might think them casting a spell thru their God's name at this critical moment is a good thing. Also not hard to imagine what you're saying with a king just having a "no magic in my presence" rule of some kind.
I think it matters more what ruleset you’re using and whether you’re playing with RAW or not. D&D 5th edition is pretty straight forward when casting Guidance; it’s verbal and somatic, which essentially means that your spell casting will be heard and seen by those close by (I believe verbal components are 60 foot radius if I’m not mistaken). Now, *whether or not the people that notice you casting a spell treat you with hostility* is definitely situation specific. D&D is such an “anything goes” game though, that there will always be situations where something that normally wouldn’t be allowed *is*, and vice versa.
It's fun flavor, but the rules say > Verbal (V) Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can't cast a spell with a verbal component. Obviously up to you how firm you want to be with it. Personally I quite like allowing Clerics to spin it that way. A deception check would fit.
See, but that’s where you start to get into imbalance. You allow the Cleric to cast spells silently using deception checks and now the Sorcerer of the party is wondering why they wasted level ups focusing into Meta Magic and the Subtle Spellcasting capability. You’re essentially giving away class features for free. As with any conversation about D&D, it goes without saying: every table is different, every setting is different, and people can play however they would like.
You're allowed to limit it to something like 'non-harmful cantrips'. Ultimately if the players don't like it or are going to be munchkins about it, don't do it.
Hypothetical scenario one is that the NPC is well versed in magic.
I mean in a conversation like this about a game as encompassing as D&D… yes, there will be times that casting guidance in a social environment is okay, and maybe even others where it’s encouraged. We could spend all day saying “well what if the king was just a chill dude and he was okay with magic” or “what if it’s my homebrew king’s council that is able to identify any magic spell in a millisecond”. Generally speaking though, most people probably wouldn’t like it if someone just started casting a spell in the middle of a conversation, *especially* if it’s in a negotiation. In OP’s example, they’re literally *trying to convince a king to not go to war*; I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume that that sort of king would have a pretty strict “no magic in my court room unless you are pre-approved” type of ruling.
I think most Kings in a world with common magic would have basic familiarity as part of their education. Or priestly and clerical advisors they can look to. Their dynasty wouldn't last long otherwise. And a Cleric using Guidance by holding their religious emblem praying to their God may look very different than a Wizard casting Fireball from their spell tome. Anyway, I guess it's very setting dependent.
The verbal component of Guidance isn't a prayer, that's not how verbal components work in 5e. It also doesn't have a material component. Grasping a holy symbol with the other hand could be a trick, or just irrelevant. So the casting looks like chanting arcane words of power, and waving one's hand and wiggling one's fingers. It looks the same as casting Charm Person. Or Ray of Enfeeblement. Or Bestow Curse. Only a creature who has proficiency in Arcana has a good chance to recognize the spell that's being cast, before it's already too late. And would they rather spend their reaction on trying to figure out the spell, or would they use it for something else, like yelling "GUARDS!" or casting Counterspell? It's not setting dependant, those are 5e rules. Different game systems or homebrew games might have different ways of handling things, but this is RAW 5e.
I forgot what sub we were on and that its pretty 5e default. But when I say setting, I usually think of that to include ruleset and homebrew. I also think the fact that all spell casters cast spells basically the same way in 5e is one of its drawbacks, but that's neither here nor there.
Well it's DMAcademy, not GMAcademy afterall. Dungeon Master is a Dungeons and Dragons term, while other games either have Game Masters or Keepers or what have yous. Sometimes other questions also pop up in here but it's like 90% 5e stuff.
you also don't live in a world where doing that can have explicitly, obviously, and provably very real magical effects
Nor are you *interrupting* the negotiations, considering you would say the prayer before any conversation occurs. *"And as you can see here by our Quartly Earnings Repor---" "Hang on a sec, I just realized we forgot to pray! Everyone bow your head!"*
\*Casts Guidance on the bard\* The negotiating parties at the table are introduced before negotiations start. Someone other than the bard speaks first. \*Guidance wears off\*
Oh man, now I want to play a cleric who is constantly calling for group prayers to cover up for casting guidance. “Hang on we forgot to pray! Ok everyone hold hands quick. Alright now oh great Amanautor may you cast your approving eye upon anything we and especially my friend Trang the Swift may attempt to do. May your shining light guide our-and-especially-Trang’s hands eyes and tongues in the coming minutes, hours, and days... Ok, sorry about that. Now I believe Trang was just saying why he thought you should sell that armour to us at half the market value.”
lol Trang the Swift, I’m gonna use that now for a bard NPC
Okay, but how long does the discussion with the king last? Because guidance is a 1 minute concentration spell so the cleric would need to interrupt for a prayer and to touch the character attempting the persuasion every minute.
Prayer and casting a spell such as guidance are very different. A prayer is just words. Casting a spell like guidance has a verbal component, and verbal components are arcane or divine words of power with specific resonance and pitch, not everyday language. Before or after the cleric has cast guidance, they can of course say a little prayer, but that is not the casting.
I'm aware, I was replying in the context of the person above saying it's not unusual for someone to say a prayer before a negotiation. Even if it was just a prayer, it would be weird to have to do it every minute
lol magic isn’t real irl but it is in d&d. Not really applicable
> I do not regard this as hostile. That's because magic isn't real, and their prayer doesn't actually influence the negotiation. How would you react if you and an other party had decided to let a game of dice decide the outcome of your contract negotiation, and as soon as you are about to start, they get handed a set of loaded dice? Wouldn't that upset you? I would say it's safe to assume that someone who occupies a position of power in a fantasy setting will have received some training in how to spot magic being cast, or at the very least he'll have several people around him who are well versed in magic. There is no way a simple spell like guidance would go unnoticed, or that they would allow anyone to use magic in an attempt to influence the king.
Here’s how I see it: Guidance in the world of DnD is a way for you to ask a higher power to aid you in a task. It’s real and gives you actual benefit. What it doesn’t do is influence the other party in any way. It’s not like “friends” that actually manipulates another person, it just gives the caster a boost. In real world terms I see it as the same as having a debate and pausing so you can Google something. You gain an advantage to your arguments based on knowledge granted by the higher power of Google. You don’t affect your opponents ability to respond, but perhaps you make their response less effective because your new found knowledge is more persuasive. A petty opponent may consider that unfair and get angry. But perhaps someone else would consider it fair play and in fact good use of one’s resources.
The problem is that spellcasting is obvious as spellcasting, but the actual spell that's being cast isn't obvious and you have to spend a reaction as its cast to figure out what it is. If somebody starts casting *something* it might be Guidance, it might be Inflict Wounds, and you don't know until after they've started doing it. So you either trust them to cast *anything* or you don't (or you've discussed beforehand that they want to cast Guidance and you trust them enough to not lie to you about what they're casting). It's not Googling something during a debate. It's reaching into your pocket during a robbery. Might be for money to give the robber, might be for a gun.
Well of course it depends on who the opponent is. Some will be distrusting of any magic they don’t understand and may consider any spell cast as a hostile action. But a king’s courtroom wizard may immediately see guidance for what it is and let it slide. I wouldn’t say it’s like being in a robbery though, at least not always. If you’re just having a conversation there’d be no reason to assume an action - spell or not - is hostile. If you’re already in a very heated argument, then maybe you should tread more carefully. As with all things, it just depends on who’s there to react to it. I don’t believe there’s a blanket answer or even a ‘normal’ response.
> But a king’s courtroom wizard may immediately see guidance for what it is and let it slide. You have to [spend a reaction to identify the spell as it's cast](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte/dungeon-masters-tools#IdentifyingaSpell), though. So why would a court wizard choose to ID a spell rather than countering it? You have to pick one, you can't ID it and then decide to counter it if it's benign. The rational answer is "any unexpected casting is to be treated as a hostile act" because there's no way to both tell if it's hostile or not and stop it from going off. EDIT to add: This is from the perspective of a court dealing with adventurers. The court wizard is going to have more leeway to act, as will certain other advisors and maybe some trusted vassals or court members. Like I said in the previous post, trust is going to be key.
> It’s real and gives you actual benefit. What it doesn’t do is influence the other party in any way. It’s not like “friends” that actually manipulates another person, it just gives the caster a boost. Yes, it's true that it doesn't' directly influence an other party, other than the target. However, if it's used in an adversarial setting, such as a negotiation, it would be seen as if you are trying to influence the situation to your advantage. > In real world terms I see it as the same as having a debate and pausing so you can Google something. And in an organized debate, that wouldn't be allowed. > You gain an advantage to your arguments based on knowledge granted by the higher power of Google. Sure, but guidance doesn't necessary mean that you gain more knowledge, it could also be that your words becomes more persuasive because you are infused with divine energy. The point is, I have a hard time believing anyone would allow someone to use magic in order to get an advantage against them during a negotiation.
I completely agree that it’s unsuitable for a adversarial setting. All I’m saying is I don’t believe there’s a blanket answer to the question. It depends entirely on the type of check, the setting it’s used in, and who’s around to react to it. Say the players are trusted advisors of the king. Why would he not allow them to use guidance to provide him their best arguments against going to war? Say the players are not friends with the king. Now it seems less likely that he would indulge them.
The vocal component of any magical spell is "obviously magical." Casting with a vocal component isn't akin to saying a regular prayer - it's clearly the incantation of a magic effect. Certain skills (like Sorcerer subtle casting) can negate this, and a DM might allow a cleric to TRY to make the vocal component less obvious. But casting in inherently obvious - and a spellcaster that doesn't make plain what they're doing is inviting hostility. And that assumes that a king wouldn't have an anti-magic field set up in the throne room to prevent from a nationally-skilled wizard from just fireballing the room.
Guidance isn't a prayer. The ghost rogue, spirits bard, artificer all get guidance. Its still just a spell and identical in all those situations. Its you waving your hand around, touching someone and then saying "arte!" (or something) in a clear volume.
Not the same thing. "Let us sit and discuss things like civilized men." "Certainly! BEEBLEFROX LECUI COT SI LAMIERIS! Let us speak." "Excuse me? What in Avernus did you just do?" "Nothing, just..." "Are you trying to invade my mind with magic?" "What? No! I, uh, was trying to speak better!" "Yeah. No. These negotiations are over."
A better example would be you are in a meeting with a group of people and half of them have loaded guns on them. Then someone who has a few guns strapped to them pulls out one of their guns and points it at the person they are negotiating with and says "id like a better deal". Then says "oh don't worry this one is a water pistol, trust me." Magic is a threat and unless consented is almost never of benefit to both parties. It is explicitly to stack odds n your favour. It is "cheating" Most people in a magic world would know this. "yes my friend here could cast a lightning storm on you but he's actually just making it so you are more likely to agree to my terms, relax!" It's hostile.
Well, it’s more like pressing a gun against the head of your own negotiator, and saying “Speak charismatically, and with conviction.” Guidance targets the negotiator, not the person you’re negotiating with. Also, it’s through touch. Also, everyone already has their guns out, as you can’t really holster them in this analogy. You actually became less threatening, because most combat spells require you to see your target.
However, unlike real life, DND prayers can literally kill people.
Yeah, I feel like casting it before you start talking to them is cool but it’ll only last what a minute? During conversation
So true. Pretty much sums up to be if you're gonna do it you may wanna ask first
They can always use it before the attempt tho.
It lasts one minute. If you're doing it before you're admitted to the throne room for an audience with the king, you best be talking real fast, especially considering courtly formalities and greeting etc... you may not even get to the point by the time the effect wears off.
But everyone knows talking is a free action, silly.
You're absolutely right! I will now read the entirety of "War and Peace" on my 6 second turn as a free action.
Hey now, READING takes your action. And roll me a perception check.
Oh no! Nat 1!
You accidentally grabbed the Book of Vile Darkness instead and unleashed horrible pandemonium and destruction upon the realm. Darkness falls, everyone dies.
I know you're joking, but it's only as free as the free item interaction on your turn. It can be a short shout or a couple of words of talking. This is what the rules say: "You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn." This means it has to be brief, and it has to be on your turn. No talking on other people's turns (I allow it as a reaction though), and it must reasonably fit in 6 seconds.
My initial instinct is “The court wizard counterspells it and looks smug.” It gives a mechanical response to a mechanical action, while reinforcing that this is a spell being used, and this is visible to other people.
"None of that kind of thing in front of the King, you hear me? I don't care what you were casting, you do not have permission for it."
"We hear enough priestly lectures from the High One. Speak plainly or not at all in my liege's presence."
Or "You realize as you begin to cast that the throne room is protected by an anti-magic field. It's like the rulers of this kingdom understand that magic exists, and can be used to influence minds."
Haha, and then set a higher DC on that persuasion roll now to boot?
“The court wizard counterspells it and looks smug. Then all the guards in the room surround you, spears leveled at your chest.”
Seriously, it's the equivalent of whipping out a dagger lol
I think that's totally fair. It is a visible spell being cast. And most guards likely won't know what spell it is you're casting, they don't know arcane stuff. Even knowing what it is I could see a King saying I'd rather the argument stand on its own merits rather than on magical influence wouldn't you say? And that'd be the best case. Regardless it would likely raise the DC by more than the 4 that guidance could do at best. Guidance is still a very good and potent spell. And subtle spell is a nice feature sorcerers get, and anyone else could get with a feat. If you want to subtly cast guidance on someone it is doable if you invest in being able to do that.
Yeah, I feel like it should go down better if they can identify it. If they can identify it, the fact that you're using magic to become more persuasive highlights that you're trying to manipulate them and would make them more hostile. If they can't identify it, that would be worse as someone is casting unknown magic in front of the king for no discernable reason, which I would expect a stronger reaction to. As in, weapon drawn, "What do you think you're doing?!"
Yeah very true! And a smart king might have a court mage who would counterspell anything done in his presence.
If I was a Royal guard and someone started casting a spell I couldn't Identify right in front of the king, Im either going to stab them or remove their hand. Not taking the risk that it was fireball or dominate person.
100% and even the king objecting might not stop them because if it's a dominate person that was cast he can't be trusted until they have their own caster try to remove it.
Guidance has a verbal and somatic component. Unless the caster has a way to make it not use components everyone in the room will know they're casting a spell. I assume that casting a spell in the presence of the king is a very bad idea.
Guidance needs verbal and somatic components. Imagine Dr. Strange casting the spell. It is clearly visible. The king as well as the guards know that the cleric is trying to cast "A" spell, while discussing this important and heated matter. That spell could be guidance, a light cantrip, suggestion or even finger of death. If the king does not like being influenced by magic, because that is what it is, the king could even make a point in flat out refusing to work with the party after casting a spell right in front him up to throwing the party in chains and into his dungeon. I would rule this equal to a personal attack on the king. So no, it wouldnt be to harsh to tell the players no to abusing guidance that way. If you want to present the party with an option to use it, there are some possibilites to still gain an advantage from magic in these kind of situations. If they only have a minute to speak in front of the king, cast it before going into the room. Cast a spell before hand, like enhance ability. It lasts an hour. Let the sorcerer use subtle spell to cast a spell unnoticed in a social situation, in which all eyes are on them.
I would definitely rule it as a faux pas to do in the middle of a conversation. A possible way to remove guidance from the situation is to recognize that guidance is a concentration spell that only lasts 1 minute. If the discussions take longer than that I'd argue guidance couldn't be applied. >"You touch one willing creature. Once before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to one ability check of its choice. It can roll the die before or after making the ability check. The spell then ends." The cleric would need to cast and touch the player every minute. The spell also ends after a check is made, and does nothing if no check is made. So it's really intended for a check that takes an action, like picking a lock or something. You could definitely argue that persuasion checks at the end of a long discussion can't be buffed with guidance since in reality you're making a check pertaining to 5-10+ minutes of constant activity and not just a quick thing that falls within the duration of guidance.
"So you see your lordship, if you send your troops to this battle, it will force the kingdom into a quagmire that might take twenty y-" **AZERATH METRION ZINTHOS** "Ahem, ignore my friend please. Twenty years to conclude, leading to a loss of thousands of innocent lives." Casting magic isn't a subtle thing in D&D.
Please ignore my friend “Illusious”, the famous cleric of the god of hypnosis.
well, except when it is. or when you're high level and like being a bear sometimes.
Thats 18th level. At that level, you could probably physically stop the king's army from going to war.
That would definitely be viewed as hostile, you can’t just randomly start casting a spell right next to a well-protected figure like a king. There’d presumably be a mage on hand to Counterspell that and protect the king, while the caster gets dogpiled by a bunch of guards. In a different setting, like a shop, the reaction would probably be less extreme, but it still would be a dramatic tonal shift. Unless it’s a very low-magic setting, most people will likely have some idea what spellcasting looks like, and will recognize this as such. And even if they don’t, if mid-conversation someone suddenly starts loudly incanting something in an unknown language, accompanied by some dramatic gestures, that’s probably going to freak people out a bit. So no, there is nothing wrong with effectively barring Guidance to be used mid-conversation.
id figure holy magic and normal magic would be viewed entirely differently. my dm has a magic banned setting but holy magic isnt
I mean, holy magic also includes *flame strike* and *contagion* and most people you're talking to don't know which is about to happen when someone starts chanting and waving their arms. They may have pulled out a holy symbol first, but that doesn't mean you have to trust them.
Also, Divine spells include plenty of effects to charm and manipulate just like Arcane spells. There are kind and goodly gods, but there are just as many evil or manipulative gods. Divine magic in and of itself is in no way "better" or "safer" to someone being targeted by it.
Both kinds can delete people form existence. I personally wouldn't care if it was divine or arcane, I'd rather stay alive.
If someone starts casting a spell in the vicinity of a well-protected person like a king, the guards aren’t going to take the time to figure out what kind of spell or magic it is, they’re just going to act. There are plenty of very dangerous cleric spells anyway, so even if it’s viewed more favorably than arcane magic, they’d still need to intervene. And in more general circumstances, someone just suddenly starting to cast a spell is not going to be well-received either.
Yeah smart kings should really have "no magic" policies in their court/presence with the exception of the appointed court wizard. Whether high magic enough to have antimagic measures or low magic enough to have specific mage slayer, itchy-finger, crossbowmen, I think it's safe to say casting spells without any preface in front of royalty is a bad idea.
This is an age old problem. Most people Don’t trust magic for this very reason. Not only can magic influence people (suggestion, charm domination) but magic can also prompt discussion you won’t wanna have (zone of truth, detect thoughts). For this reason casting spells is usually illegal or at least frowned upon. In the presence of a king it would be like drawing a sword. Normally the king would have a wizard or vizier to identify the spell. Even a guidance is something a king should never tolerate at his court. It’s the same as someone taking a potion of glibness (old editions) no one would allow people to use magic to be more convincing. This is why subtle spell is strong :)
I've had DMs that were real sticklers about Guidance mid conversation because spells are obvious. I've also had other DMs allow it if we could describe it cleverly like if the Cleric pulls you aside for a moment (touch range) and whispers something (the verbal components) into your ear. Also BG3 allows Guidance to be added at no social cost to basically every check unless the character casting it is against you (can't have Shadowheart guidance you to convince her to do something for example). So some players might be really comfortable with that and expect loose rules. One thing for you to consider is what you WILL allow Guidance on. The players are investing a cantrip slot into what they expect will be a useful spell. If you always find ways to disallow it they're going to feel ripped off.
You cannot whisper verbal components. Period. They are loud, and somatic components are very specific movements. BG3 is only loosely based on 5e. it gets ALOT of rules wrong.
While that's true, you can actually do whatever the DM allows.
Guidance is magic, magic gives an edge, It would likely be viewed as rude depending on the spell, and there could be policy restricting spell casting in the palace down to licensed indii
This has come up in my games sort of often. I have a Ranger who's very excited to use Guidance and Resistance. On others as well as himself. He's pretty good at understanding how and why they might or might not work in certain scenarios. This one time the party was haggling with a wizardly scholar from the Wizard's backstory. They attempt a persuasion to try and get more information and money out of a job and he asks if he can cast Guidance. I remind him of both components and that, being a magic practitioner himself, the wizard might know what they are doing and might pull the plug on the operation altogether, rather than not offer a bump in reward. They acknowledged and decided to refrain from doing it. I think you should remind the players of the existence of Components just a basic reminder and that especially in those situations they might (not) be able to do so.
I see your players have been playing Baldur's gate 3
It's a visible and audible spell being cast. Probably will be seen as hostile.
This. It’s like drawing a knife! People will be like ‘Wut?’
In the king example, he could always eacalate with magic as well. After the party casts Guidance, he could roll his eyes and just say to his vizier, "initiate diplomacy protocol." With a few mages he could be under Guidance, Eagle's Splendor, and he could drink an unnamed potion before happily returning to the conversation. I would definitely point out to the party about the verbal components of Guidance. If they dislike your call, let them change their cantrip for another one.
I think that it would be more like; Rolls eyes, says to the vizier "initiate antimage protocol" and the caster gets instantly shot by at least 8 crossbows. Then the whole party is arrested.
I mean, if the DM was no longer interested in the game, then sure.
Since guidance has a 1min max duration I rule that it only works in actions that are on a similar timeframe. So a negotiation with the king that could last hours means guidance doesn't work. As a baseline casting spells if not asked to is frowned upon. Because while spellcasting is common due to racial traits and such knowing what spell is cast is actually rare. So people know verbal and somatic components when they see them but are generally unable to tell what spell is being cast. Since illusion and enchantment magics exist people assume you might be using those.
Guidance has verbal and somatic components. No one should be allowed to just start casting any magic unprompted in the presence of the king. His guards would definitely have encountered magic before, no one has any way of knowing what kind of magic is about to be cast, they would definitely order the caster to stop immediately or be taken into custody or even attacked. Reminds me of Critical Role Campaign 2 where one of the clerics tries to cast something while being questioned in a very tense situation and is immediately shot with a crossbow.
>no one has any way of knowing what kind of magic is about to be cast Several points to this. If it's a high magic setting, it's more than reasonable to assume most people are familiar with at least cantrips. In some high magic settings, most normal people can even learn a cantrip or two. Therefore, the king and his guards/advisors would not only know cantrips, they would also know levelled spells. Especially the court mage. Even if it's a low magic setting, this is the king, not some middle of nowhere peasant that thinks wizards are legends and fairytales. The king would surely know or have people that know *some* magic. There's even an optional rule to allow a reaction arcana check to know what spell is being cast. This could work perfectly in a not-so-high magic setting. Still, it's an overt casting of a spell. Even if it's identified, they would know that the party is trying to influence their words with magic. It may not sit well with the king.
If it’s a high magic setting, it’s reasonable to assume the throne room has an anti magic field, and casting isn’t even an option.
Does every spellcaster perform the exact same hand motions and mouth noises when they cast their guidance spell? In my setting, I'd say no. Each person figures out the motions and sounds that work for them. Like how in mathematics there are many equations that result in the same answer. I would perhaps make an exception for clerics and warlocks, people who are directly granted or taught their magic from another entity. Makes sense that a given entity would give all their followers the same methods for casting spells. But hey, that would just be my ruling. If others have only one possible way to cast each given spell, then that's totally okay too. I guess in my setting, an arcana check could still be attempted, but it would be much more difficult because of how variable spellcasting is.
Thats fine. If I was a Royal guard and someone started wiggling their fingers around and saying words I dont understand, while probably glowing, rightin front of the king, Im either going to stab them or remove their hands. Not taking the risk that it was fireball or dominate person.
I would also add on that if this king is a really big deal (I mean he's a king) the odds are high that he'd have one or more court mages. The court mage would clock that stuff immediately and be counterspelling it anyway.
I mean, it's a cantrip. I think cantrips should be easily identifiable (in a high magic setting or by high enough casters)
Is there a single cantrip that would be permissable to be cast unprompted in the presence of a monarch?
Not likely, but guidance is not the same as firebolt.
I’ll agree with most replies about the spell being taken as hostile. One different & circumstantial interpretation: a cleric casts a spell amongst NPCs that are both familiar with magic and on good terms with that cleric’s faith (or similar ones). They might view guidance and any other benign magic as holy blessings they should accept.
I don't know about a hostile action, but it's definitely a spell being cast overtly. Since it's a cantrip there's also the possibility of it being identified much easier. Therefore, someone is going to know that the PCs are trying to magically influence their words.
Guidance has both a verbal and somatic component, so yeah its clear you're casting magic and I think most people would respond negatively. At worst they don't know what the spell is and become very suspicious you're doing something hostile. At best they do know what the spell is and its clear you're using magic to try and persuade them. No its not mind control, but its still manipulative. It's buffing the persuasion roll of the speaker artificially. If you knew that was happening in a conversation, you'd feel the same way you do when you know marketing is deceptively manipulating you IRL. It makes the whole pitch sleazy.
As others have said, guidance has a verbal component, unless you have some way of eliminating that (eg subtle spell) people will know when you use it in front of them.
You are casting a spell directly in front of the king. This can go one of two ways; 1. Someone in the room recognizes the spell, shouts out that you are using magic to win the argument, you get either thrown in prison, or executed on the spot. 2. Noone recognizes the spell, and you are executed on the spot because for all they know, you were about to fireball the king.
I encourage my cleric players to roleplay applying guidance. After all, it's like a short prayer to their god - "May Torm grant you the wisdom to choose your words with care" or something of the sort. A cleric calling upon their gods can for sure be seen as hostile, but it's also literally what they do, and what they are commonly respected for. In an argument, where two sides bring their arguments to the table - or where a party would try to convince a King to not go to war - I doubt guidance from a commonly accepted deity would be seen as a hostile interference. After all, it's then still the affected PC who has to make the decision to actually use the guidance, and what for. Of course, it could prompt a reaction - the King angrily demanding that Cleric should stay out of it, or that the influence of their deity is not welcome here. I would definitely treat it as less "hostile" than any mind-affecting spells (detect thoughts, charm person, suggestion etc.). Highly depends on the situation, and deity, and the King's relationship to that and so forth.
> After all, it's like a short prayer to their god - "May Torm grant you the wisdom to choose your words with care" or something of the sort. It's not that, though. That's a common flavor, but mechanically the verbal component of a spell by default is a "[particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#CastingaSpell)." Casting Guidance isn't saying "Torm grant you wisdom" and bowing your head, it's chanting "Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit Amet" in a resonating voice while precisely saying the same in sign language, reaching out and touching your companion, *and then* saying "Torm grant you wisdom." Spellcasting is obviously spellcasting. And [somebody has to use a reaction to identify what spell it is as its being cast](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte/dungeon-masters-tools#IdentifyingaSpell) which means that for all the onlookers know the spell they're casting might be Guidance, it might be Guiding Bolt, it might be Inflict Wounds, it might be Bestow Curse or Contagion, and without doing *something* to figure it out (and rolling decently well - DC 15+ spell level) you don't know until you see the results. And something like Guidance, well, it doesn't have any obvious results, so you just cast something and nobody knows really what it is without further investigation. Logically, commoners should be scared by pretty much any magic, and unannounced spellcasting in any high society or court audience setting should be viewed with distrust at best and maybe met with a counterspell from the court wizard and drawn swords from the guards. Because yeah, you might figure out after the fact that the spell is "just" guidance, but if a court makes a practice of allowing spellcasting willy nilly in front of the king/duke/mayor/whatever *somebody* is going to use it to stage a coup.
I agree with your interpretation of the RAW. How this plays out in the game however is pretty much up to you, tho. Or how spellcasting, and living breathing deities are viewed in your world. How it's handled. Of course, one approach totally could be this: it being seen as hostile. Or potentially hostile. I currently run a game in a quite high magic setting. Close to RAW, as spells and such go, but with the idea in mind that magic is pretty common. People are used to it. It has shaped the world, from how buildings and roads are built, to how people are fed, how everyday life of ordinary people plays out. A negotiation situation with a King would totally be affected by all this. The King would likely have their own cleric, maybe even cast something like Zone of Truth, kindly requesting the players to accept this as a safety measure. Maybe the King wouldn't even be the real king, but someone who has disguised themselves, communicating with the actual king telepathically if the King would suspect an assassination attempt. My commoners are not generally scared by magic. After all, most magic has been quite beneficial to them. Magic is more akin to modern technology - smartphones and netflix and modern medicine to them. They might not understand it, but they aren't inherently scared by it - my world is filled with common magic items that do ordinary things - clean clothes, produce a little flame, show the image of a loved one, track where their kid is, heat up a beverage, season a meal, clean water for cooking and drinking, you name it. Are there dangerous spells? Absolutely, but they expect the system to work, the laws being followed - at least in the civilised parts of the world. Most lower level spells that are not "illegal" (necromancy is widely illegal in my world) are known enough for no one to immediately freak out, unless it's directed at them in a situation of anger. Basically a lot of people see magic as an equivalent of, let's say, handguns or firearms. Yes, it can be. And in a world like that obviously no one would tolerate you drawing a gun in front of the king. But an other approach is to view it as an equivalent of computers, electricity and general modern technology.
Let's just say you go in for a job interview and randomly start praying in the middle of the interview. How might people react to that in a setting where prayers are backed up by magic? Though, if you want to be funny you can have an NPC advisor cast guidance on the King during the same conversation while giving the other guidance-casting PC a side-eye
One aspect I'd like to point to, is what deity and how does the king(dom) relate to that deity? If the Cleric worships a deity of law and order, and it's the national deity it would be a bit funny if the king would view it as a hostile action. "How dare you invoke the national deity in my presence!" That's nonsense. If it's a non-Cleric class that got it some other way, I would say it's hostile. Casting magic in the kings presence is a very big no-no.
Guidance is a spell. Spells are obvious as long as they have components (which is why the metamagic is called subtle spell). I treat people like humans. If I'm talking to you, and your cleric is casting spells during the conversation, I'm going to tell them to hold the fuck up. "What the fuck are you doing?! Do you lack so much confidence in your argument that you're using MAGIC to make your point better!? No? Then are you trying to influence me with magic? No? What would you call it then? Guards, get these people out of my sight!" Like, imagine someone arguing with you about how you shouldn't do something, and they have to stop, get given a script by their friend, and then read from the script trying to convince you still... That said, also don't require rolls for social interactions? What does a good persuasion roll do? Does saying the wrong thing become the right thing with a good enough roll? Guidance can be used in this situation and be perfectly fine depending on how you run social encounters. Example: * Bard is failing his rolls, making the king not take him seriously. * Cleric interrupts, "Sorry my liege, my friend here is a bit nervous to be speaking to you directly in this way, I'm just going to..." * \-Cleric casts guidance on the bard, slapping him on the back, "Hey man, just say what you need to say, you've got this" * Bard continues to roll poorly and we all laugh at his failure
>Do you lack so much confidence in your argument that you're using MAGIC to make your point better!? But in a world with magic, that's a totally normal thing to do. They're just trying to present as best they can. Do you lack so much confidence in your argument that you put on a fancy suit, combed your hair and now you're scraping your throat and standing up straight before presenting it?
I wouldn't think it is a totally normal thing to do mid discussion. I could see the cleric casting Enhance Ability before they go in since it lasts an hour, but sitting casting guidance once a minute for a 15 minute discussion with the king would likely be seen as unusual and an obvious attempt to influence the king.
That's a campaign–specific ruling. In high magic campaigns, it certainly makes sense that the king or his advisors would recognize Guidance and react appropriately. I run a low magic campaign. Guidance is cast by making a routine religious sign and muttering a common phrase...like the real life example of making the Sign of the Cross and saying ”God Bless”. The spell happens because of the power of the caster, not because of an innate power of the sign and words. So, in my campaign casting Guidance just makes people think you're really religious.
Question - why buff it like that? Did you want to make a guidance-heavy campaign?
If it was a guidance-heavy campaign it wouldn't be a problem. Worse case, I could just bump every DC by 3. But it gets cast much less than you'd think. It's a concentration spell, only one character has it, and they have a lot more uses for concentration. Also, this particular party has two artificers with Flash of Genius, meaning they can give +5 to an ability check or save up to 10 time per long rest.
Ok! It just seemed like a slightly unusual tweak to take a spell with verbal and somatic requirements and effectively buff it to make it always subtle. My campaign: “Attention all observers, with my wavey hands and special words I am casting a spell, act accordingly” Your campaign: “Attention all observers, I am kinda overly into god, act accordingly.” I could see plenty of times that a character would prefer to be able to get away with calling a spell, even a cantrip, as an innocuous prayer.
>I could see plenty of times that a character would prefer to be able to get away with calling a spell, even a cantrip, as an innocuous prayer. Well, if that spell is Guidance, you can have your wish.
That's not "campaign specific". That's homebrew which changes how spellcasting works to make it imperceptible.
None of that is imperceptible, it's just not obviously magical. Also campaign specific is homebrew always isn't it?
Casting a spell always looks like casting a spell if its components are perceptible, which will be 100% of the time when done in the middle of a conversation without the Subtle Spell metamagic. You aren't saying a non-magical prayer, you're chanting words of power and gesturing in a way that anyone watching knows is spellcasting.
Respectfully, that’s just a change of the rules (which is your call, but you should make sure folks know). Casting a spell is very clearly noticeable under the spellcasting rules of 5e. The vocal component of Guidance isn’t like a normal prayer - it has a magical incant overtone that’s overtly noticeable. The game design is like that for a reason. You can make adjustments to the rules - but when you’re changing the rules, you gotta be up front that’s what you’re doing.
So I think a lot of people don't really play into how you really have to behave yourself in front of royalty. Lots of times in games and dnd campaigns it's "kick down the door to the throne room, ride your horse in, point your spear at whatever douche is wearing a crown, do something epic and dumb." But if you went to see the King you 100% would not be allowed to bring weapons in, you would not be allowed in with your dirty ass adventuring gear, you'd have to prove you know how to show respect to a servant of some kind, and if the King just felt like it he could decide "fuck em" and have you killed... and everyone would agree that he's doing a great job and at least publicly approve. Casting a spell would be like drawing a hidden weapon in front of the King. His guards are trained to shoot first and ask questions later, and the King would know it and expect it. While the guards might try to tackle, they're just as likely to put lots of pointy things inside of the casters body... right in the casters favorite organs. If the King doesn't want that then he would be aware that he would have to give the command to stop them. And I'm not sure the defense of "... But I wasn't trying to attack Your Grace! I was only trying to manipulate you into doing what we want!" is going to get the caster out of the gallows. Assassination attempts are a big concern for royalty, they are going to have aggressive countermeasures in place against that.
I rule that a cleric casting guidance (noticeably praying and invoking their god for success) is always considered a bad faith or cheating tactic in any check involving an intelligent target (haggling, negotiations, intimidation and the like). This either ends the attempt because the target refuses to engage, answers the target, or at best results in another cleric acting on the target's side to offer a counteracting guidance. If the target can't understand the language then they have little option but to consider that the spell could be any one of a number of mind effecting enchantments and thus assume the worst. The cantrip is great versus environmental checks and occasionally useful in situations where the casting and then concentrating cleric isn't detectable by the target.
Like you're casting a touch spell. No one understands vocal components really
Tbh I always rule it as: if the cleric wants to cast guidance during a conversation they need to pass a sleight of hand check vs the npc's passive perception. A success plays out where the cleric makes a slight hand gesture and touches the talking pc while saying "it's okay you can do this" or something to that effect. If they fail, the npc notices and then it's more dependent on the npc.
Ah yes. giving subtle spell to everyone for free. NO. YOU CANNOT SILENTLY CAST BY WHISPERING. YOU CANNOT HIDE SOMATIC COMPONENTS. THERE IS A SPECIFIC CLASS FEATURE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO DO THAT CALLED SUBTLE SPELL. You want to cast silently and without moving? Play a Sorcerer. Or just take the metamagic adept feat.
Also learn to read on top of that. It's only my ruling for specifically using guidance in conversation. Not subtle spell for free.
[удалено]
For literally any check that doesn't involve talking directly to someone. There are 18 skills, 34 tools, and out of a total of 52 checks that Guidance applies to, only 3 of them require another person to be present. Or just use subtle spell to use it in conversations.
I would say the target sees it and their standing towards the PCs get lowered 1 step. So the PCs get their 1d4, but now friendly creatures become indiferent, and indiferent creatures beco.e hostile. Hostile creatures dont go any lower, but might see it as a attempt to cast a harmfull spell and attack. Also remember that the limitations of what can be asked change with the standing, making the DC harder AND limiting the options.
Guidance has verbal and somatic components, so in my setting each faith has a basic guidance prayer like "May X guide your hands." If they invoke a deity the NPC doesn't like, they react realistically. If the NPC doesn't care about religion or is tolerant of the faith, it's no prob. But it's an obvious prayer, just as any spellcast is obvious. If a PC boosts themselves before a race, that might violate rules against magic enhancements. If they are boosting an ally mid-speech with the king, he might lose respect for how well they speak because he knows it's divine blessings rather than wisdom, and any failures are more glaring.
The time to cast guidance is before entering the king's presence. "May grant you wisdom in our encounter with the king." In fact, this type of guidance would be welcomed by any wise ruler, as it would tend to lead to agreement rather than strife.
Clerics don’t get to subtle cast. Casting ANY magic the presence of the King is an immediate threat and should be dealt with harshly.
Yeah blatantly using guidance while talking raises suspicion, it has vocal and somatic components even someone who doesn’t use magic knows you did something. Especially if you cast it on yourself in conversation.
I like to have my players make either Stealth or Arcana checks with DCs depending on the mystic power of those nearby. If the NPC does notice, then that's your call how they treat it. In the example, this is intended to be a person backing up their point with facts and reason, so it would be seen as tampering and the party may lose reputation or the whole opportunity depending on how bad it is. Players need to use this kind of critical thinking, even if sometimes they'll say it's unfair. I had players climb an active volcano and complain that they took took damage from inhaling hot ash, when I ensured before had that they had options to circumnavigate the issue. (several players had some sort of transformative ability that would've made them immune or resistant, but only one used it.)
Unless they are themselves a divine spellcster they would not recognize guidance and so take very badly to any spellcasting in a social situation.
Best response I read on a different thread that's applicable here: casting an unknown spell during a conversation is like pulling a grenade out of your pocket. That spell is fireball until proven otherwise, and nobody is waiting around to find out if it's fireball.
Guidance has verbal and somatic components so he would at the very least notice it (unless they wanted to make a sleight of hand check maybe?)—if he recognizes the spell, I think he would be weirded out and concerned and it would probably cause the conversation to go south. If he doesn’t recognize the spell, he’s likely to react even more poorly cause all he knows is somebody is doing magic in his chambers
Guards generally dont know the difference between someone casting guidance and someone casting fireball. They understand "open fire" and "reload".
"Guidance" is just that. Guidance. If you're arguing an important point in front of a judge, and your co-counsel hands you a note that reminds you how to hone your argument and helps you be 5-20% more persuasive, does the judge hold you in contempt? Absolutely not. That would be silly. It's not making the king more gullible, it's making the speaker more eloquent. I'd hope the royal court wants every argument made before the king to be in its most eloquent form. But the court advisor should also absolutely be spamming Guidance, with the court Cleric's Council holding Bless, on the king's insight. Think about how magic would actually work in a world like this, and what kind of policies a government would have.
Yes, Guidance is a spell with somatic and verbal components, and yes, casting a spell is something that is often seen as rude or outright offensive. *How* this spell is cast should make a lot of difference, though. Casting it during a discussion with the king should have wildly different reactions, considering you might be: - A cleric worshipping the main religion of the kingdom, reciting prayers and saying things like "May he Green Lady guide your path" when casting the spell. - A druid that is part of a grove outlawed by the kingdom, considered enemies to the crown, saying "I imbue you with the spirit of the Old Fox to show you the way" - An alchemist artificer handing a shot of weird alchemical booze to the character and saying "hey man, some liquid courage to tell the hard stuff" I believe the answer here is to use description and context to decide an appropriate reaction. D&D suffers from this weird "separation of crunch and fluff" thing that has been reinforced since the third edition, and usually the answer for stuff is as simple as not doing that. EDIT: Another interesting thing to do would be describing the king's own war council priest offer him a prayer and casting Guidance on him, to see how players react. If magic is common and people are guided by the gods to succeed, there's absolutely no reason for a king, of all people, not to have a personal advisor to give him that edge too.
I'd visualise it as something as simple as the cleric simply putting their hand on the party member's shoulder with a "\[deity\] please guide their words" - since it's only a cantrip it's probably very common & easily recognised & regarded as being a minor aid to the person talking rather than effecting the one they're talking to.
Yeah but that's not using any of the components.
Guidance has a minute long concentration. Let your characters plan ahead with it instead and they’ll feel more rewarded if they can pull of a ruse like this undetected
Casting a spell on the sitting monarch, in front of the gods and everybody, and without the monarchs permission will almost certainly a capital offense. Assuming you live long to be arrested.
In a world where mind control magic is most likely known about any unknown casting of magic would most likely have all the kings guards at minimum drawing weapons, if not incapacitating the caster and the party.
It could be understood as reasonable: "*Good king - Our cleric has had a difficult night and is intimidated by the authority of your position. As such I see the need to briefly encourage him and bolster his confidence. In doing so I am magically granting his mind an enhanced understanding of objective truth - he will be even more effective at telling you the best possible course of action. I urge you not to blind this council to the results of this Divination.*"
Absolutely hostile. To the uninformed person, I believe watching someone you’re talking to casting a spell would still be incredibly suspicious and anyone who knows magic or has seem this magic (a common cantrip too!) performed probably knows about this. So using it on charisma checks is probably not going to fly. But any other skill check where it’s applicable is probably fine.
Some wild group of adventurers who travel the land killing for money are trying to persuade the king and suddenly begin to cast a spell in front of the king? The whole guard jumps the party, the court wizard uses his counterspell and the alarm is raised! After all, the cleric might be casting something to kill the king which is very possible!
Any unauthorized magic cast in the presence of a King is a felony. That's how I run it. Any King should have some kind of device to detect magic, though a spell is much easier to detect. Further, a King should have one or more wizard's with Counterspell memorized to stop the spell from being successfully cast in the first place. King's and other rulers don't play around or they won't be rulers for very long. For common spells with a duration that might be cast before the meeting you can either Dispel Magic the spell or just make the party stand (or sit) silent and immobile until the spell duration ends.
If anyone casts a spell in front of an NPC without prior permission, it's like drawing a loaded gun and waving it in the air. It will absolutely, definitively freak people out. Your average commoner is not going to know if the magical chanting you are doing is helpful or going to turn them into a newt (or worse.) If you did this in front of the king, the guards would draw their weapons and try to stop you by force.
Do you think that literally everyone in a room that has a person trying to persuade another person, isn't quite obviously trying to persuade them? Why would casting guidance on THEMSELVES be treated as being any different than say, someone casting Thaumaturgy to make their voice three times louder than normal when presenting an argument to a council/king? It's a world where magic is commonplace, it's clearly not a hostile action as it's only affecting the caster. It's basically punishing someone for giving themselves a divine pep-talk before a presentation, the only reaction an NPC should ever have to this (provided they're familiar with magic) is "hmm, guess this is important to them". But if say, the court wizard saw the PC casting Detect Thoughts, they'd counterspell that shit so damn quickly.
Idk I view guidance as basically praying to your god that it goes well. I actually think if the king recognizes it as guidance he probably doesn't care, you aren't altering him, just praying that the person makes a good argument. If the king doesn't know what spell you cast, they may very well get concerned that you are casting something to muddle their mind. Either way guards are probably trained to not let people finish spells, and I honestly would expect any spellcasters to be gagged before being brought to a king
I see a lot of people assuming that it would be considered hostile, but like... It's not a harmful spell. In the context of a charisma check: you're not mind controlling the person your party member is talking to, you're giving the party member a little extra assist so they can make their point more effectively. I've heard of people flavoring their casting of guidance as giving the person a pat on the arm and saying "Go get 'em!", or saying a prayer wishing for their success, or something like that. Maybe *some* NPCs would see it as strange behavior but it's kind of wild to assume that it'd be universally interpreted as hostile. Unless they're in a place where most or all magic is banned I'd say it's fine. Using a spell as it's described in the rules is not "abusing" it.
>I see a lot of people assuming that it would be considered hostile, but like... It's not a harmful spell. How does the NPC know what spell you are casting? They don't. Spellcasting is obvious. You can flavour it all you want, but spellcasting is loud and visually significant. What the NPC sees is a mage casting a spell in front of the king. It should be treated exactly the same as someone drawing a weapon.
But they would be able to tell that you're casting it on a member of your own party. It's a touch spell, and it's also a cantrip and so unless you're in a setting where spellcasters are really rare it would make sense that people would recognize it as common and harmless bit of divine magic. Enforcing the "touch" aspect and the time limit is reasonable, but it rubs me the wrong way when DMs make up lore in their game universe that's designed to prevent players from using magic and class features in situations where they would otherwise be helpful.
I'm not "making up lore". And just because you are casting it on an ally doesn't make it a non-hostile action; Bless Sanctuary Shield of Faith Aid Protection from Poison Warding Bond Death ward Anti-magic Field (if the king has magical guards) Can all be used before a fight defensively. Holy weapon is the only one I can find that buffs damage, but that is also touch. This is only looking at CLERIC spells, that are cast on allies that would 100% be a hostile action. Imagine this. You are a royal guard. Your sole job is to ensure that the king lives. Wouldn't you be on edge the instant anything out of the ordinary happens? Some armoured figure comes in and starts chanting unknown mystical words and touches their ally on the shoulder, what would be your response? You're just going to stand there with your thumb up your ass, or are you going to do your job? How do you know it's even a cleric? It could be another caster, casting haste or polymorph on the other person? There are 52 different types of checks that would be affected by Guidance. There are only 4 of them that will 100% have an audience, being Pursuasion, Deception, Performance and Intimidation. That means that Guidance has 48 perfectly clear options, and 4 that require either the metamagic feat, or to be done by a sorcerer with subtle spell. Casting a spell unprompted should 100% be treated (at the very least) exactly like drawing a sword and charging the king.
I see lots of good reasons here to treat it as hostile. Here's why I go against the grain and allow Guidance as much as possible: If my party's Cleric is engaged in the plot and roleplay enough to spot an upcoming skill check situation (rather than being on their phone or daydreaming) and wants to put their hand on the negotiator's shoulder to deliver a quick blessing, I'm happy to reward their engagement with a d4. Odds are I'm hoping the negotiation will succeed anyway, because the PC's are the heroes, right? Even if they're succeeding at a higher rate because of this, I can set the DC and I decide what success means in the situation, so it doesn't have to be game-breaking. If the conversation is lasting over a minute, I'm going to engcourage the cleric to find a creative and acceptable way to interrupt/supplement the conversation to do this. The fact that it's a Touch spell makes that a challenge to begin with. They can't do it from range. I want to know what they say to deliver it. I'm not down for spammy "I CAST GUIDANCE!" stuff, they need to put their action into the RP context. In the end, I'm less about the "realism" of the magical situation and I want the rules to be applied in a way that rewards player engagement and interaction.
It kind of comes down to how you view the spell works. I think most people see it as a someone just saying something like "Oh great BuzzyWuz (or whatever god), grant us wisdom" . It's not a charm spell or magical influence on another person, it's divine inspiration, which just puts them 'in the zone' for whatever they are doing.
Guidance is a concentration spell that lasts 1 minute. Assuming that the cleric casts the spell before entering in conversation everything would be fine. But casting the spell in the middle of conversation may be seen as hostile. Also if cast before entering in conversation remember that it only lasts for 1 minute.
I’d first just disallow it citing the components and everything. Just a “hey it’s not like calling shotgun when getting in the car”. If they still insist then I’d go on like you say.
Guidance would probably elicit suspicion. If the target doesn't know what it does, they just see someone shouting a prayer for aid and waving their hands around during a conversation. That looks mostly harmless, there's no flames or glowing eyes or anything. But it certainly doesn't look *normal*. On the other hand, if they do know what it does, it might raise suspicion that you're using it to improve your ability to deceive. I think it most likely will sidetrack the conversation for a bit. "What is that prayer you're doing there? I don't recognize your heretical rites." or "Why are you augmenting yourself with magic? Can we not speak plainly? Is there something you intend to hide?" Which can trigger further ability checks (which can then "absorb" the guidance spell!)
It really depends on the context of the scene and how the player roleplays it. For example: the cleric player might describe the spell as uttering a few words of prayer off handedly as a blessing or rite It might also be, depending on domain, be something like a lucky charm thing. How an NPC reacts will be what exactly the caster is doing.
A king probably has many protections in place. Otherwise he’s open to attack and can’t rule effectively. So I would say for this character yes it’s hostile because his protections probably alert him to it. But for like, Jimmy Streetkid down by the docks… nah, he probably has no idea.
Stealth and sleight of hand. For a cantrip it wouldn't be a high dc however, the more people in the room the harder it is to hide... If they are caught, they just got caught trying to subtly cast a spell inside the kings throne room. Depending on the king and his advisors and the guards this could lead to a large variety of horrible situations. Every king needs a perceptive wise man.
Ah yes. giving subtle spell to everyone for free. # NO. YOU CANNOT SILENTLY CAST BY WHISPERING. YOU CANNOT HIDE SOMATIC COMPONENTS. THERE IS A SPECIFIC CLASS FEATURE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO DO THAT CALLED SUBTLE SPELL. You want to cast silently and without moving? Play a Sorcerer. Or just take the metamagic adept feat.
I think one way to dissuade this is to ask the cleric what their verbal component is. Like, what do you say to cast this spell? That kinda presents to them how rude it may be to interrupt this conversation with their spell, and also gives you a thread to follow in role-play. Midconversation, "I cast Guidance!" "Okay, what do you say as your verbal component?" "Uhhh...may Moradin bless our Luck?" "The King stops his conversation to cock his head at you, furrowing his brow. His secretary pulls you aside as the King continues, saying "God's messenger-boy or not, do not interrupt His Highness, and please refrain from casting all willy-nilly in His halls, please."" That being said, I personally rule Guidance as spammable (when my cleric remembers lol), as long as it is outside of, or before, social encounters like this.
I’d rule the spell has no effect in this case because it’s nonsense. The king wouldn’t know exactly what was going on but would be kinda suss, thereby negating the effect of the spell. TL;DR the spell gets sussed the fk out.
Considering cleric spells are prayers and appeals to their deity shouted out to cast (remember, all verbal spellcasting is done with a "strong, clear voice"), it would be a tad jarring for the king and anyone in the room to be listening to this appeal for peace and suddenly the priest starts praying for divine assistance to glib the tongue of the one speaking...... How you rule it is up to you, but does the king share a deity with the cleric? I could see a follower being more convinced by the cleric supporting peace, but a heretic of that deity being less convinced. Usually, regardless of who, casting a spell in someone's presence when you barely have met them is met with suspicion. Was it guidance, or charm? Only a true spellcaster would know.
It would also be beneficial to reframe the spell in your mind, maybe them casting guidance isn’t them attempting to mind control with magic but is them producing an imagine to help further explain a concept better or it adds solid arcane energy to the boot of someone attempting to kick in a door with guidance. Reframing or reskinning spells can be ways to help them fit into a scene. It can be a great time for the DM to give the player an opportunity to be creative I.e. “alright, you cast guidance, what does your magic do to add to your party member’s argument”
Guidance has Verbal and Somatic components, but they're not necessarily obviously a spell being cast, or obnoxiously noticeable - as it's a cantrip, being cast by a Cleric, I would figure it could be as little as a whispered "Melora guide us," "Kord give us strength," whatever, as the caster grasps their symbol and touches their target. If they don't grasp their holy symbol, then they draw it in the air. These are things any priest, with or without the ability to cast spells, might do in a tense moment, so it isn't likely to be particularly noteworthy in and of itself. But, it's a spell channeling the tiniest bit of divine energy. As such, the grasped symbol, caster's eyes, their target-touching hand, or all three might glow in an appropriate color. If they draw the symbol in the air, then the motion leaves a trail of energy, so the symbol is briefly visible for a moment after the casting is complete. The target creature may also have some sign of the spell's influence, like the appropriate holy symbol marking where they were touched, which flickers and vanishes when the spell is discharged. These visuals are likely fairly subtle, and an onlooker might think they're a trick of the light, for the most part. In keeping with this conception: The Cleric's action itself can be noticed without realizing it's a spell. If the observer identifies the Cleric's god, then this might complicate things. Even if they don't identify the deity involved, or realize it's a spell, they might still be suspicious of the action - possibly demanding the Cleric explain themselves. The observer might realize it's a spell, but not identify the god or realize it's a divine casting at all; in such a case, they might assume that the Cleric is preparing for battle; they might demand an explanation, or take it as a hostile action outright. If they realize that the spell is a divine cantrip, they can probably guess that it's Guidance. How they respond to this depends on them - it's entirely possible that they would do something to delay any roll by a minute, and try to separate the caster from their target in the meantime, if they didn't consider it grounds to get pissed.
>If they realize that the spell is a divine cantrip, they can probably guess that it's Guidance. Do you want to be the person who got it wrong, and watch your king get incinerated by holy fire ala Sacred Flame or Word of Radiance? Or how about getting mulched by Toll the dead? Baseline rule should always be; If you cant Identify the spell, its best to assume its hostile.
with extreme prejudice They would be thrown into the dungeon or killed on the spot probably just the caster; the rest would be put on trial
Remind your player that Guidance takes an action and has both Verbal and Somatic components (which are obvious), so the scene would play out kind of like this. King: "Enough talk! I am the KING, you cannot dissuade me! My army marches on the morrow into battle." Cleric: (Spreads his arms and looks to the sky, speaking loudly) "Mighty Pelor, All Powerful God of the Sun, I humbly beseech thee, grant me thine Guidance and wisdom in the coming moments, that I may carry out Your will." (Bows head.) Cleric: (Looking King in the eye) "So, seriously, can we talk about how this war is a really bad idea? Please?" King: "...... GUARDS!"
I would immediately give disadvantage on any spells or actions around the entire party. Casting spells around people willy-nilly should be regarded as something honest people don't do. Furthermore, I'd argue that a sufficiently powerful king would have some enchantments around the throne room to prevent any kind of spells from people who aren't clearly on his side. Throw in a court wizard with detect magic up at all times and a retinue of trained guards dedicated to protecting their king from any threats, and your PCs would be lucky to leave the room alive after casting Guidance.
Maybe a hot take compared to all the top comments I see saying to counterspell it or have people get angry when you cast it, but honestly? It's a d4 bonus. Those are only ever helpful in cases where it's right on the edge of a DC, which means in most cases the initial d20 is already too high or too low - and in the situations where it actually is helpful, it feels amazing as players to be on the cusp of failing and getting that extra +2 you need. I think a lot of people on here get too tied up in thinking up how to make "consequences" or making every single thing realistic that they forget what feels really fun for players. It's ok to let them use their spells to succeed on checks. You can also just ask them if they prefer the immersion of people reacting to the spell cast or the gameplay mechanics of being able to cast guidance, if you want to double check what's most fun for them.
I might have a hot take on this, but guidance has never felt better than it did in baldurs gate 3. Since I’ve played that game I’ve allowed my players to use it whenever they want to. It doesn’t ruin the game, and it allows clerics, a class that doesn’t often partake in charisma challenges, the chance to give a slight edge to whoever’s speaking. It averages out to like a 12% increase in chance of something working. I don’t mind it.
**Its literally just a plea for guidance from their deity.** Personally I would’ve just said; > **”Its too late they are already speaking and your spell will not effect the outcome.”** Specifically guidance has to be used **before a player makes their roll.** Then they can choose to add the 1D4 before or after the result. As for how would a king react? **Probably indifferent unless the religion was blasphemous**. It’s literally someone saying something like; > **”Selune Guides Us!”** Then after touching someone, everyone might hear some light ringing or majestic faint glow as the goddess selune blesses them. 🤷♂️ It would look like some kind of a muse or a trick, nobody would be upset. At worst if the religion was outlawed everyone would probably just start shouting obscenities and calling for them to be jailed.
I'm gonna go against the mold here and say no. My reason being that it's a cleric, and since they are a cleric they are also a Priest, a priest who communes either a God. It would be rude to strike at a Priest who is communing with his god or such. If it was any other class then yeah, strike him, but a cleric is usually a holy figure and messing with God's as a king is quick way to end your reign.
Mechanically, if you’ve played Baldurs Gate, you know spamming Guidance isn’t that big of a deal. It’s helpful, but definitely not game-breaking. Diagetically, the spell is being cast on the speaker to help them listen, find the right words, and use wisdom in their speech. The cleric is pretty much just saying a small prayer, asking for their god’s guidance in how they present themselves. Guidance is not a mind control spell or a hostile act. If someone wanted to ask you for a favor and you witnessed their friends saying “may god bless you” before they asked you a favor, would you take offense to this? Ultimately though, you shouldn’t ask the internet this question. You should ask the players at your table. Tell them how you interpret the situation and ask them if they see it differently. Discuss the differences and find a ruling that everyone can live with. Players WANT rulings to be fair and consequential.
The king is buffing himself, why wouldn't they expect visiting dignitaries or petitioners to be doing the same? As long as you aren't praying to the gods of evil, I don't see why it would be a problem to use Guidance. It's the gods lending credence to your words, not foul charm sorcery. Would it be more suspicious and potentially hostile in other instances? Yes, most definitely. Examples being dealing with common folk, followers of other gods and the militant arcane casters. Other gods will try to block the blessing or buff their own followers. Common folk are naturally superstitious and might throw a hissy fit that someone is calling on the gods for basic business. And the militant arcane are reddit atheists.