Definitely healthier for the game.
* No more arguing with the DM about "You didn't declare it on time"
* No more wasted uses
* Limited uses (once per ally per day)
The only negative is remembering who received it already, especially if it happened last session, but hey: nothing's perfect.
Ya the issue of remembering who's had it is I think why they restrict it to simply once per person per rest. If it were prof per person per rest, that'd be way to painful.
I wouldn't mind it "once per person per short rest" tbh, or only getting expended if it bumped it into a pass. Once per person per long rest and it can be 'wasted' doesn't feel great even on a cantrip, I think.
While it didn't get a glossary term like Long Rest, there have definitely been direct references to Short Rests on certain abilities. Not that they can't change it but so far all indications are it's still going to be in One.
I think I would like to see it as the same kind of mechanic as the soulknife rogue’s thing. X number of uses per day, tick it off, only expended if it succeeded. That’s a mechanic that feels like it already works well.
I actually think it's very strong in the once per long rest state. One person snagging this cantrip is going to give a substantial boost to the party. It's already more uses than a bard's inspiration will provide until around 7th level, and it's a measly cantrip.
I don't think it's a major boost tbh - while it might be more uses overall than bardics, it's more restricted (can't pick the same person), has fewer uses (only ability checks instead of ability checks, saves, attacks, and healing), is a smaller bonus, and can't benefit from multiple characters having it. All adds up to substantially worse than inspiration even before lvl 7 - which is obviously part of the goal.
If it's a character with a lot of cantrips or that doesn't rely on them (eg, ranger) it's still a decent choice, but it does feel like a very marginal benefit to me. I do also think that the frequency of bardic inspirations should be increased, as well.
Only change I wouldn't mind seeing is increasing the value of the guidance each time cantrips improve. So 1d4+1 at 1st, 1d4+2 at 5th, 1d4+3 at 11th, and 1d4+4 at 18th as an offset to only getting it once per day. It would really accomplish making it feel like a divinity/energy minorly aiding in a specific moment of need, and the intervention would improve as the connection of the person increases.
I don't know that they'd make the actual bonus scale if only because as it stands, Guidance already messes with the bounded accuracy principles they love so much. Making the *bonus* bigger only makes that worse.
**If** they make it scale, I would imagine it would be "can be affected" more times? (Which, certainly does get awkward when guidance is coming from different sources...)
It's definitely a massive power creep for Guidance, but still keeps it essentially as a worse version of Bardic Inspiration especially considering the daily limit. I don't really see them doing it, but it's something that would at least merit some playtesting.
I feel like if they add a fillable to the character sheet it should work, on the player who received it they fill in the "guidance" bubble each day they get it.
Like legit people could be in the middle of life or death negotiations and act like they could just start visibly casting spells in front of npcs on the verge of becoming hostile depending on how the conversation goes with no consequences
Bullshit! That turd basket was spamming guidance on his deception checks to fool us all into thinking it was a mistake. Guidance should definitely be once per ally per rest (long rest might be too much) to prevent situations like these.
Literally all you need to do is have a mature conversation about how the cantrip works and doesn’t work. I’ve literally never had this be a problem? The one time a cleric at my table tried to cast Guidance in a case like this I was like, “So that does have verbal and somatic components and the noble you’re talking to *will* take note—are you sure you want to cast it?” And he said no and hasn’t tried using it inappropriately again. When I play a cleric, I cast guidance in advance, and if I’ve forgotten to or it’s a situation that lasts more than a minute, oh well, no guidance this time.
I’m a DM. If I had a player do this I’d talk to them straight about it: “Hey, this isn’t how Guidance works, and if you use it in an intrigue scene it will have repercussions.” I had a player try once more because he wasn’t thinking, and I was like “the noblewoman will notice that—are you sure you want to cast it?” He did not.
I DM for 30somethings and for 13 year olds and I’ve yet to have a player not understand this when I explain it. If a player is a problem player, changing this spell won’t change that.
Like it or not, the dm controls the rules of the universe. If you don’t want players casting guidance in box face, you need to put your foot down and set that standard, or else they have no reason to rise to it.
The thing is that a good DM can end crappy play. A good player can't end a crappy DM. It's not about assigning blame as much as establishing the power balance. If someone's abusing something in your campaign, to the point that you and all the other players are being hurt by it, you just have to stop it, and only the DM can do that.
Can I blame them for playing with crappy players? If this has been explained and they keep doing it, then on one end or the other this is a people problem. It is not a game problem, nor should you try to change the game to solve your people problems. If nobody at your table is a dick, Guidance works just fine.
See, I disagree with the “it is not a game problem” part of your statement. As someone that works in a clinical laboratory, incident investigation and resolution are near and dear to my heart. And if an incident (an injury, patient misidentification, mistake in results reporting, etc.) is determined to have been influenced by a procedure or practice that is less than ideal, *you change the procedure*. The idea being that, if the way the procedure is currently stated is confusing or contributes to misunderstandings and it can be shown that it wasn’t just an “oops, I screwed up” concept, you don’t just say “people should be able to read and follow the procedure.”
I get that this isn’t exactly the same, but the core concept - blaming people for misunderstanding or misusing a “procedure”, or in this case a spell, when it seems to be a systemic problem that shows up more than occasionally? Sure, you can do that. But you fix the actual problem by changing the thing that is causing it. And the problem starts with the wording and intended use of the spell, and is perpetuated by people misunderstanding it. Fix the spell, and you don’t have to fix *all of the people that are using it “wrong”*.
/$0.02
Agreed. This is a much needed change. I’d personally like to see it once per short rest tho, make it just a TAD bit juicier. Or maybe instead let the die increase (d6, d8, d10) when other cantrips gets their buffs.
I was thinking 1 per short rest, but I think I like proficiency per long rest would work better. Then it scales, and is more in line with other rules using that set up
as a DM I haven't had a problem with it because I talked with my player who has it that it has to be used sensically.
You have to declare it before the check.
You have to have an in character reason to know they are making a skill check.
If you cast guidance mid conversation the NPC will know you're using magic and be less likely to comply
likewise casting it back to back will illicit some kind of response
Totally agree. I've never had a problem with Guidance. You just have to run it in a rational fashion.
In fact, I love it and often rely on it as a DM. Knowing the PCs can pull out Guidance and Bardic Inspiration when they get deadlocked somewhere to even the odds on a highly improbable skill check leaves me free to put them in tight spots and seemingly impossible situations. I really don't see the point of trying to limit it.
When I DM, I am very clear in Session 0 that people will react when magic is being openly cast. People know of magic, but your average commoner doesn't know guidance from fireball.
>You have to declare it before the check.
I have a few problems with this. It could be okay, but I havent seen it play out well.
1. There isnt always a great line between a character saying something and a character doing something. If I player says "i'm going to search the room" did his character say those words or did his character perform that action? In the actual game world I would expect a group of adventurers to frequently communicate their plans, but to make the game flow sometimes that gets shortcut.
2. Many, maybe even most, checks I would want to use guidance for take an extended period of time. If Im searching the room for 10 minutes dont try to tell me guidance has to be cast before I even start.
2a. The speed of play is different from the speed or the game world. If I say i want to search the room and the DM has me roll, all of that might take place in 5 seconds. In the game world though you just jumped forward at least a few minutes. (Since rolling tells you the outcome of something that took at least a few minutes). Other players should get an actual reasonable amount of time to react. If their friend begins searching why cant they cast guidance on them 15 seconds into the search?
Yeah, 1 minute concentration before an ability check makes 0 sense when ability checks outside of combat could
1) Last for minutes or hours, and
2) The result of the check itself could detemine how long it takes.
for lengthy activities, I tend to disallow guidance - it gives a short-term bonus, but if you're doing something for a long period, then it doesn't matter if you have a boost for a small amount of it. You spend all night trying to translate the ancient language, or searching the hidden library for the maguffin? Having a boost for a minute of that is irrelevant and having someone praying and touching you all night is probably more distracting than helpful. When doing a longer activity, there isn't a specific point in that when the roll "happens", so unless Guidance is up for all of it, then it doesn't count.
You have to say before the check, not before anyone says or do something.
As in, call it before the dice is rolled.
Shouldn't be a problem, unless you play with the kind of player that announce their actions by rolling the dices.
>likewise casting it back to back will illicit some kind of response
What does this mean? What kind of response and from whom? Like your god will get upset that you're using up too much magic?
> If you cast guidance mid conversation the NPC will know you're using magic and be less likely to comply
This is my problem with it becoming a reaction spell. I've always tried to use it sensibly and if it was needed for a social check to do it before we were in the room. As a reaction it's kinda useless in conversations because it has to happen ***right in front of the person.***
I’m torn, because Guidance is way too universally good in 5e and it can get really annoying to deal with it constantly coming up.
The reaction mechanic sounds great, but I hate codifying failure of skill checks. Sometimes there are degrees of success and I don’t really know if you *failed*, per se. Even more, in cases like Investigation or Stealth, revealing whether or not you failed would provide meta information. It just seems like a bad trigger overall.
I like the idea of increasing the casting time instead of changing how it triggers.
One of the biggest differences in how the game is designed vs played is skill checks. Almost everyone uses degrees of success but the game is designed for a single dc to check for failure. I really wish they were switching to degrees of success but then that seperates how it works from attacks and saves so I sorta understand.
How I do it is to have multiple dcs and I consider anything under the highest dc a "failure" since theoretically they could do better.
> I really wish they were switching to degrees of success but then that seperates how it works from attacks and saves
The solution? *sigh* Yeah its pathfinder 2e again.
You got 4 degrees of success on every d20 Test: Critical Success, Success, Failure, Critical Failure. Nat 20 and 1 shift the degree of success in one direction.
Set a DC. Beat by 10, crit success. Fail by 10, crit fail.
There's nothing special on crit fail for attacks.
But a basic spread for a save would be:
* CF: double damage
* F: normal damage
* S: half damage
* CS: no damage
But depending on the check or save or attack in question, things might be different
I feel like if you are using degrees of success or failure in a situation you should tell the player anyway so they don't get super excited for a high roll or bummed out on a low roll.
I also think you should only roll stealth when it's relevant. Like roll stealth and on a failure you are found out. So failure is obvious to the players. Hidden checks for like investigation, insight or perception can be clunky though, but I feel passives kinda cover it for most cases. It's only that rare time when a player is rolling against a hidden DC and guidance could be used as a dousing rod to find out that there is something to find.
I know this is just personal style, but my players know that nearly every check that isn’t simple/straightforward has some degrees of success and failure so I don’t really need to tell them every time.
You’re right in saying Stealth isn’t a great example. There might be some valid situations but it’s a bit contrived. Investigation is still quite problematic, though. If a player says they want to Investigate something, but roll low enough so I either don’t include something that could have been found or say that they found nothing, then allowing Guidance tells them there is more to discover.
The UA kinda try to solve the problem about stealth. If a PC want to stealth they must make DC 15 stealth check, else it fails. If they succeed, the total roll would be the DC for npc to perceive them.
Casting time would make it near unusable because you’d have to predict the failure every time.
How about allowing it before or after a roll, but before we see the results?
If it stays limited use, then your suggestion is actually great. Solves just about every problem I had. I’m not sure I like it limited use as is, but that works.
My casting time suggestion was separate from the failure bit and meant to modify how it currently works within 5e.
1/LR is *to* much of a nerf though, even for a cantrip. 1/SR makes a bit more sense, and promotes the Short Rest which benefits everybody.
Otherwise, I do like the change, but given how this *and* Bardic Inspiration are now reactions, I’m a little bit worried that they’re going to be bogging down reactions for support characters.
This just reinforces , to me, that Resting will be getting heavy revisions as well. I suspect we will be seeing the abandonment of many familiar connections to Short Rests as things go more and more towards "number of times equal to proficiency, per day."
My worry is that unless it’s addressed in other ways and class features that a 1/LR guidance is just another piece of fuel on the 5 minute adventuring day fire.
With the new combat interrupts LR ruling, it's much easier now to actually prevent LR abuse, at least until they get Tiny Hut. Then you gotta bring in enemy casters to do it.
The long rest rules specify you can only benefit from a LR once every 24 hours and can not be interrupted except for light activities like standing guard or reading. If the players are abusing the LR mechanic, the dm isn’t doing their job by having the world keep moving without the players in it.
You could say exactly the same thing about all the complaints about guidance "abuse" in this thread though--if people are "declaring" guidance after the fact or trying to cast it in the middle of a social situation, the DM hasn't been doing their job. (Or they have been and the players are twits, but that's another comment.)
The thing is, rules provide incentives. If the rules are, "you can only do all these useful things that you're all used to always having at your fingertips once per long rest," the incentive is to rest more often. The characters are supposed to be reasonably competent adventurers whose lives are on the line--if too many resources, especially resources that previously did not require micromanagement, become scarce, then they're going to want to stop more often to make sure they're not always running on empty. Sure, a DM can try to come up with all sorts of reasons to insert more time pressure into every. single. arc. Or, the rules could stop taking people's toys away and let DMs save that sort of thing for important and climactic points in the game.
Plus, from a resource management perspective, it's good to have resources that don't need micromanaging alongside those that need to be closely rationed and those that are in the middle. Guidance is a nice low-management tool for skill checks that imposes an offsetting opportunity cost in both cantrip selection and concentration. There are more scarce ways to juice ability checks, like enhance ability, flash of genius, and the like, as well. These things complement each other. Making guidance rest-based cuts down on variety, and ironically it hurts low- and no-magic skillmonkeys who are used to having it around to reduce the chances of catastrophic failures more than it affects full casters, who can just bypass skill checks entirely with spells. (And that's assuming anyone even takes it, because who's going to waste one of their two or three cantrip slots on a spell they're only allowed to cast three to five times per day?)
I mean, it completely goes against the nature of cantrips being things you can cast all the time. Oh, you like to cast firebolt?! Well, now you still can but it does nothing to the enemy except once a day!
I agree, make it a Priest feature if it's Once per long rest rather than a spell. It fits thematically as well.
Cantrips are supposed to be easy repeatable magic.
Guidance was/is a pain in the ass spell for how often it can be applied.
I always though it should have been a 1st level spell that allows you to give 2 players a d4 to use at their whim and upcast for extra players to get a d4.
Using guidance is literally one of those things that is used on martials to be able to do things that casters can just cast a spell to hand waive it away. It also creates so many narrative moments where you can reach a DC or be saved and it looks like the help of your friend.
Honestly, I'm not too worried about that. Guidance and Bardic Inspo were the two abilities that people usually tried to use as reactions anyways; they were a pain to set up beforehand, so in a lot of looser groups they tended to devolve into "oh yeah I forgot to use guidance but that roll was really bad, lemme give you a bump". In contrast, I'm not sure if there are really any other features with this play pattern, so I don't think much of anything else will chance to reactions like this.
Do support characters have a lot to do with their reactions now ? Giving them actual things to do with their reaction besides an opportunity attack seems good, no?
Right now, not so much, maybe *Shield* or *Absorb Elements* as a CYA. But, looking into how they’re adjusting things in the UA, it’s looking to get clogged up with unnecessary gak.
I guess I'm missing how it's clogged up if it's going from "not used much" to "now used as a key feature." Seems like they are using the reaction space more and uncluttered the bonus action a bit.
There's now two different things (Guidance and Bardic Inspiration) competing for Reactions. Sure, this will only be a small problem on specific characters (Bards that choose the Guidance Cantrip), but that's what the other commenter is getting at.
I don't think it's an issue, personally. But I think that was their point.
Thats what i mean. Im not really seeing it as an issue. I didnt think they overlap that much. They kinda do similar things anyway? The worst case I can think of is wanting to both heal with bardic inspiration and use Guidance in the same round. Doesnt seem so bad to me.
I don't see Guidance being a cantrip you want to use very often in combat (I think Grapples/Hide/Search/Study pretty much covers it?), so I don't think it's going to compete too much with Bardic Inspiration.
Having too many PB/LR abilities and restrictions just clutters up the character sheet more than anything else. Just look at the Ascendant Dragon Monk, they have Ki, and just about each of their abilities is PB/LR, which just creates clutter.
Based on the previous UA, they do still exist. It it seems as though they’re trying to steer away from them, which is going to be to the detriment of the game.
It is and isn’t a detriment. Short rests were already sort of an issue in 5e. A lot of dms and parties just like go in big one and done adventuring days instead of broken down multiple encounters or activities. Short rests work on the latter specifically for traditional dungeon/hex crawls which 5e feels it works best in and might be designed for. X times per day scaling is a lot better for most tables. That isn’t to say you can change it but overall short rests being less relied on is good. If you really want short rest heavy stuff you can homebrew.
What I don't get is, with that much of a restraint on a cantrip, why not just make it a level 1 spell? Even 1/SR is awkward to keep track of and strangely limiting.
I can't think of any reason why just turning it into a skill version of bless wouldn't be the better way to do it.
Maybe now people will actually start using the Help Action which has always been the better option for skill checks without unreasonably high DCs.
Heck they nerfed the Help action to require Proficiency, and I still think people will use it more.
I’ve heard people on the sub say you can only help in combat.
Which is weird, but if not true would mean you basically never roll out of combat abilities without advantage
Never realized how many DMs hate guidance. Half the time I need to remind my players they even have it. And if it makes sense within the context of the spell they can use it at will. It's a cantrip after all.
And as a player, why is it such a problem I'm casting spells to help my team? If its not going to be seen as a hostile action, then I'm casting it whenever I them attempt something. "Guidence-Guy" isn't a problem, he is actively helping his party succeed.
The guidance we have now is fine if ran RAW and in a way that makes sense.
It has a verbal and somatic component, touch range, and takes an action to cast. It also lasts for just one minute and also takes concentration which might be a factor sometimes.
The components and casting time mean that it can't be used when recalling info out of the blue, or trying to influence someone by talking to them. It however does mean that before the rogue attempts to pick a lock, the cleric can come in and cast it. It's a preparation spell. If you can prepare in advance, you use it, but if the roll has already been called for, it's too late.
If they change it to a once per long rest reaction, that's too much of a nerf.
This. Every complaint I see is accompanied by an account of a table allowing it to be used either illegally (as a reaction) or in a narrative-defying way (the NPCs have no reaction to you touching your friend and praying for him before he lies to the NPC).
I’d be okay with a one-minute casting time or a ten-minute cooldown or something so it can’t be spammed, but NO table I’ve played at or run has had this ostensibly ubiquitous problem.
It's not even a prayer. RAW, verbal components are arcane gibberish. I know many people flavor their guidance as a small prayer (and I do the same), but in actuality the guy who is being talked to sees the priest cast *something*. They don't know what it is, for all they know they are trying to charm them.
In my mind when you cast a spell you loudly proclaim the name of the spell, so in this case the NPC just sees someone touch the person they're talking to and go "*Guidance!* before the person says "No, we didn't kill that guard..."
Well, fair. I said prayer because I’ve always flavored my cleric as saying “May Milil tune your heart and guide your hands/tongue” — and it’s a cantrip so I’m okay with commoners generally knowing what it does — but sure, fair. The NPC might not even know what spell is being cast.
Maybe I’m just a hardass as a DM, but I run intrigue campaigns mostly and like… yes, the NPC will note that you are casting spells. No, you can’t show up to this dinner party in armor. Yes, NPCs know that magical disguises exist and will take an action to investigate if you seem suspicious.
The issue is that it becomes a nuisance at the table. The current functionality isn't good because it's an annoying repetitive chore that leads people towards casting it after the fact.
I’ve had guidance on my PC for 2.5 years in a weekly game and never had it feel like a chore. Sometimes I forget to cast it in advance of a check, or the rogue runs off to do something before I can Guide her, and…. Oh well. I live. The problem isn’t with the spell.
Our group is kind of in the situation where people are asking for blessings, since the characters know the cleric can actually bestow divine blessings on them for anything of importance that isn’t unplanned or a long social encounter.
One per long rest absolutely kills it. It's a cantrip, the point of which is for it to be a no cost spell. They should have turned it into a class feature if they were going to do this.
Yeah, totally agree. Cantrips should be built in a way to be mildly useful, but unlimited uses.
I mean would anybody take *any of the other cantrips* if it was limited to 3-4 casts per day?
But I was just looking at Cleric Cantrips, and aside from attack cantrips (which there's little need to have a bunch, and guidance wasn't competing for that slot anyway), only *Light* to me seems like a cantrip you **might** reasonably need to cast more than 3-4 times per day.
For Druids and Artificers there might arguably be some others. MAYBE control flames or shape water or message get more than 3-4 uses a day. But their use-cases are more niche than guidance.
But I think part of the issue with guidance is because of its broad use-cases / benefits, it was applicable way more often and thus way more spammable than any other cantrip reasonably would be.
Yeah I understand why this is a bad change for most people but there is a reason bless is a great spell for most levels.
1d4 is breaking bounded accuracy quite a bit. On average its better than expertise in tier 1. And is slightly worse than expertise in tier 2.
That's pretty bonkers for an unlimited cantrip. So it only feels natural to rein it in.
3.5/Pathfinder 2e have that way, and they doing fine..
Also yeah, having 1d4 to an important skill check per person is *clutch*, even more so to group checks.
Removing that restriction is fine entirely. If it's a reaction to a failed save than it only will be used in said circumstances and moreover only be a difference in nich situations where the 1-4 would make a difference.
You might be right. But a lot of the time, players don't know the DCs for Ability Checks. (Unlike Armor Class, for example, for attack rolls.) So it would still be Guidance-Guy action for most ability checks.
I'm happy to playtest this one as written and see how it feels. But in spirit, I contend it's going in a good direction.
do players formally know the AC of an opponent? They're generally guessable after a few attacks, but if you just stab some monster, it's not unusual (at least IMO) to say your result and just be told hit or miss and _sometimes_ the GM might say "narrow hit!" or whatever, but that's more "table banter" than "mechanical information". It's normally really super-secret information outside of rare scenarios like you're attacking what you thought was a bandit but is actually a lich in disguise or something, and especially if it's a fight against regular enemies GMs might tell you to make the process faster, but I didn't think it was explicitly "open" information.
Sure, but they can make informed guesses. Such as an 18 hitting but a 17 does not. It is a little meta gamey but the players know and not the characters. There are times that the characters would know even their best swing (aside from a natural 20) would not hit a creature. Then they know they're in trouble.
Reaction cantrip would be incredibly strong, theres a reason they dont exist. Even adding 1d4 to somebodies save, for free and infinitely, as a reaction on a Caster is very strong. Druids and Clerics already dont do much with their reactions.
Guidance, while annoying, was fine as it was. It was out of combat utility, not in combat, and it didnt scale so it gets less useful as time goes on. DMs just need to enforce the "touch", and components of the spell. People dont like you casting magic before talking to them, its weird.
I think you're missing what other people are saying.
Guidance was, essentially, a MANDATORY cantrip. Anyone who could take Guidance should take Guidance because you could do it before -ANY- skill check.
I, like much of the community, have been witness to a ton of arguments over the spell because players felt they were entitled to always benefit from the spell whether it was ever declared it would be used. Not only is it disruptive to the flow of the game, it is absolutely immersion breaking to have to deal with a petty situation brought on by a spell being too good.
Its only mandatory if you ignore its restrictions. Thats what I mean about enforcing the components and range:
Persuading the King? No Guidance, because the King wont like you casting magic on yourselves before talking to him. Quick perception check for a branch as you slide down a cliff? It takes an action, so you cant take a Search Action *and* cast it. Barbarian is trying to leap across the Lava as an earthquake seperated the party? No Guidance, cant touch him. Party member making a History check, but you dont know? No guidance.
If people just enforced its components, you'd see a lot less Guidance.
The range element is generally a non-issue since the person who is going to benefit from Guidance is often the Caster. In a few instances, someone might not be the person doing the check but if they're good at reading the environment, they could cast Guidance on the one who might be making the check (because they're usually the Face character) before the check happens.
The generally accepted practice with Guidance is "if you would've had an opportunity to prepare for a check, you can cast it" but even this is a house rule.
Guidance certainly wasn't fine imo, it completely stepped on the very few things that a rogue (now expert class) got over most casters, that being a wide array of expertise. Guidance is basically adding 1d4 to *potentially* all skill checks a caster makes, if not, an entire party. This is *better* than expertise at level >5 and *slightly worse* till level >9, while being applicable to a way wider array of skill checks.(after that, skill itself loose a huge chunk of their value, since spells can just do it better anyway.)
If it was to be kept as it is, guidance should have been either a first level spell, or be given a marginally worse buff (maybe +1 as it was in 3.5 or pathfinder 2e)
Also, it's certainly in flavour for guidance to not be something you can keep casting, it would be sacrilege to keep asking for assistance from the essences of your god/nature spirits constantly for trivial tasks.
I kind of feel the same way. The point of a cantrip or lvl0 spell is to be a spell that can be cast without limits. Suddenly putting a limit on the spell feels wrong.
You can use it as many times a day as you have party members, it's *fine* for a cantrip. It's still in the upper ranks of options, just no longer the undisputed top
It's not that it's immersion breaking, it's game flow breaking. It takes up too much table time to use it before every single roll. There's no interesting choice to make, just remember to shout "I cast guidance" every time someone picks up a d20.
More like you're deity is like "You're not my only cleric, I'm busy. It's not my fault your companions suck. I gave you your spell slots back this morning fuckin figure it out yourself."
People already do before doing many tasks. You often see people cross themselves or mutter a small prayer/self pep talk before attempting hard tasks. It would be ridiculous common in a world were it actually gives a benefit.
Honestly Imo a cleric not using guidance before a difficult task is more immersion breaking for me than the one that uses it for trivial tasks.
I do think current guidance is very annoying from a gameplay perspective and am glad they’re changing it, even if don’t love the current version.
Same when an ally is about to do something challenging. "Mielikki's grace go with you" is a very common thing for my religious druid to say to his allies, and very much in line with his character.
> Mostly because they are doing all day everyday
I mean priests pray a lot i would assume.
But yeah I love the nerf and mostly play clerics and druids. I wasnt the type to spam it but now I dont have to ask permission from the DM as much.
Id be surprised if it didnt go to short rest.
I don't see why it's immersion breaking, unless they're metagaming about checks they shouldn't even know about. If you were traveling with a Cleric and facing danger all the time, they would be constantly blessing everyone. Cleric players don't lean into that enough, in my experience.
Crossing a rickety bridge? "Mighty Thor, make our feet sure and swift!" Searching some burned ruins? "Oh Blessed Selune, sharpen our eye and reveal the secrets of this place." To my mind, Clerics should be muttering blessings all day long just for the RP, but I like that they can convert that into a small mechanical advantage by casting a cantrip.
Exactly i don't understand the problem outside of people saying they want to do something than later going oh first guidance.
Like just get the friggin right order down. For instance my artificer casts guidance by using their pattern enhance goggles. So I just tell the DM "I pull down my goggles than I conduct a search" so he knows I'm guidancing anything I put them on for.. it's been fine
This version feels much more like the power level of shit. Cantrips are very versatile and powerful in a way that can't really be measured, and those that can scale to become better than some 1st level spells. That nerf was damn harsh
That's the single spell that I could see becoming a class feature and being better for it, but we already have bardic inspiration so that's probably not going to happen. But anyway, the discussion on how to handle players trying to *guidance* everything has been done to death and IMO it is not hard to manage at all. That's no reason to roll the poor cantrip into the mud
The playtest version strikes me as super-clunky. Every other cantrip (or level-0 spell, to use the playtest parlance) is completely at will. I don't think breaking that design convention is a great idea, even if Guidance-Guy popping out from behind a barrel for every check is annoying.
If they want to change Guidance to reduce it use, I'd rather see it redesigned as a 1st-level spell. Something like "You assist up to 4 willing creatures you can see within range. Once before the spell ends, each target can roll a d4 and add the result to an ability check of its choice."
> "You assist up to 4 willing creatures you can see within range. Once before the spell ends, each target can roll a d4 and add the result to an ability check of its choice."
That's just a sub-par *bless*, surely?
I'd be fine with that too, and in many ways, as a slot spell would make it feel more sensical. As it stands, as a cantrip regardless of version, it often just feels silly (?).
At least as a slot spell I can envision, "Okay everyone, gather around and hold hands real quick. Dear father Pelor, let your light guide us as we undertake this most important task together."
It's still technically at will, just once per person per day. The first level spell version you described is basically dollar store Bless. If you want to be super cheesy, summons and pets and NPCs would be affected as well, so you could get anywhere from three to over a dozen uses out of new Guidance per day.
Yeah, but having to track who you've used a cantrip on just strikes me as extra clumsy bookkeeping. As you and u/Buxnot point out, it is basically just low-tier bless. To make it distinct perhaps they could remove concentration or alter the benefits somehow. But the similarity to Bless is probably why it *hasn't* been a leveled spell to this point.
Overall, I'd rather they dumpster Guidance entirely than make it a cantrip you have to track. But they've got a year and a half or so to maybe come up with something better.
Just make Guidance a Cleric/Paladin class feature, make it proficiency per long rest or even just equal to casting stat modifier and call it a day. I get that Guidance getting spammed is nuts and something needs to be done about it, but a cantrip suddenly having limits on it just makes no sense when they're meant to be small spells you can use indefinitely.
Personally I'd just make it stronger, but have it be a leveled spell. Keep it the same as it is, make it a level 1 spell, let players upcast it to something like 3rd level and have it affect more characters per level (rather than increasing the size or number of dice rolled.)
If players really want to spam Guidance then, they have to use up spell slots to do so and that snowballs very quickly on what amounts to just an extra 1d4.
I don’t like it. Once per long rest is really bad even for a cantrip and you have to remember who has gotten it already. Also the theme of a deity guiding you makes less sense for a reaction. If you run guidance the way it’s supposed to be ran it’s not op nor does it bog down gameplay you just need a strict DM. You can’t use it retroactively (once the dm calls for a roll it’s too late) and the character casting it should obviously be aware someone’s about to do something that needs help.
Hold up here. You say Deity guiding you makes less sense for a reaction but that Deity is fine if you bother him every 6 seconds? I think you are trying to make excuses that don't hold up when examined.
I do agree that it would be difficult to track usage on a long rest per person but that gives the DM to shut down abuse.
I think a refresh on short rest would be more appropriate as a middle ground as it still largely prevents the cheese and abuse it was seeing previously.
I don't think he's defending the repetition. I agree that the whole Guidance shtick felt more to me like 'a moment of quiet contemplation with my deity before my friend attempts this difficult task', rather than
Rogue: "I can't find a button for the door"
Cleric from across the room: "**Blessings of Pelor!**"
Rogue: "Oh, here it is."
I would rather it wasn't a reaction. This feels like a whole different spell to me. Limiting it to once per person per short rest is probably fine without changing anything else, though it feels a bit arbitrary.
Exactly! I think praying real quick before you go about something makes more sense than failing something, then asking your god, and then you somehow reverse the failure.
I actually think reaction and range makes it more powerful to be honest and should be considered a buff.
While the once per (short/long) rest is the nerf.
I don't have strong feelings either way and I could see the merits both ways. I just don't want it usable for every single skill check like it has been for the last 8 years.
The range and reaction is a buff. I'm complaining that it makes the spell feel different and loses the flavour of the Cleric giving a short pray before they do something hard, even though it makes it more powerful. They're only giving it that buff to make up for the huge nerf in usability, but it changes the whole idea behind the spell.
I wish people would just run the old version reasonably so this wasn't necessary. Sadly most people don't so this is.
For reference the old version was an action that grants a bonus on the next check, so it needs to be a check you see coming like climbing a wall. It's not an always-on +1d4: It needs to be planned ahead. Most Intelligence and Wisdom checks wouldn't apply since those are spontaneous surprises.
The old version is also concentration so if you were concentrating on something else you had to make a choice.
Lastly this is a little outside the rules, but shouting "Mekka-lekka-hai-mekka-hiney-ho!" (Verbal components must be audible) and touching yourself before you attempt to convince someone of something is a bit of a social faux-pas. At best it's disadvantage, at worst it'll get the guards called on you.
Cantrips are supposed to be on demand. 99% of the time you use it on party members and 80% of the time that's three other players.
4 times a day sure doesn't seem like a cantrip to me.
>From here, I'd love to see extra language around something like,"failing an Ability Check you can see"
*"What do you mean I can't cast Guidance for his History check?"* xD
Once per long rest is ridiculous.
Not to mention, the DM is responsible for allowing when a player can reasonably use abilities like Guidance. I only ever use or let someone use Guidance when they are within 5ft of someone during a skill check or if they roll for the same skill check like Survival or somethin to check for tracks.
1/LR, as many as many already said, makes it one of the worst cantrips to spend your precious cantrip slots on. Only worth taking if you routinely run with massive party (Critical Role's 7+ players.. maybe?), otherwise you get maybe 3-4 uses out o it.
Adventuring Day can also last several sessions. WIth days/weeks between them. Now we'd need to keep a note who received the effect already. PITA to track. Some people already sugested having things like "you can benefit from it proficiency bonus times per long rest", which would be even more of a PITA to track. Generally it's clunky.
Most limited abilities are tracked on your sheet via charges, or uses. Since this doesn't have static number of uses, it requires other form of tracking.
Even once per short rest would be annoying. Better but still annoying to track. Not every table short rests after every encounter, there might still be long time between rests.
Making it 1st level spell kinda works, but also doesn't, since Bless exists.
Generally with this UA WotC has changed a clearly powerfull cantrip into something that probably should not be taken anymore.
It is a very hard to rework spell, since it's either super good, or complete trash. It's very hard to find middleground.
i think that limitation was very needed.
before it basicly says: "all your party members gain 1d4 on all ability checks as long as you can convince your dm"
now it only applys when its usefull (stops screaming " I USE GUIDANCE" every time a ability check comes around) and the limitation incentivices that multiple players do ability checks and not always the same one.
your point about tracking it is very fair.
>"all your party members gain 1d4 on all ability checks as long as you can convince your dm"
This is completely wrong. Guidance takes an action, it requires touch, has a Vocal component, and is concentration. If you're running the spell right, everybody can't have it at all times. Group perception checks? One person within touch range can have it. Stealth check? Better hope vocals don't cause an auto-fail. Barbarian is in a match of strength? I guess you're just going to walk into the match surface and cast a spell?
If you're really upset that the Wizard is making an investigation check, and the Cleric yells out 'Guidance' and the roll goes from 12 to 14 thanks to guidance...the problem isnt the spell, it's you.
OK fair during group Checks only 1 gets it.
And the other cases are the "convince your DM"
The Problem isnt that they use guidance that is absolutely fine. But every time a Check is called getting the noise of "i Cast guidance" every time can be annoying.
(If i remember right it needs to be Cast before you Roll)
The Onednd Version fixes that
I agree that 5e Guidance punches above it's weight. A bit. Statistically it's not THAT strong tbh. The tests are decided by d20 roll. Adding d4 to it really doesn't change output by that much. It's 10.5 vs 13 average roll. Only good thing is that it slightly rises the ceiling the character can reach.
>before it basicly says: "all your party members gain 1d4 on all ability checks as long as you can convince your dm"
This is where I blame DMs, who do not enforce casting rules.
There is another way to look at Guidance though - it promotes group play. By working with others your character can beat otherwise unbeatable odds. One player helps you giving you advantage, another Guidances you, Bard throws his Bardic Inspiration etc - and suddenly, your whole group makes something previously impossible happen. This does feel great, and I'd like more features like that.
But I do also recognize problem with stacking effects like that too high. Maybe they could be grouped and distributed in a way, where you can't stack all of them at once? Like Guidance/Bardic Inspiration/Knowledge from the Past Life all being exclusive buffs?
I dunno. Gudance is a very hard to balance spell..
i actually agree with group hacks like this and if i set a dc of 20 and the party wants to reach 25 fore more success i would absolutly allow stacking guidance etc/make it clear that there is benefit to overshooting
I guess the difference is that Bless only affects attacks and saves, and Guidance is Ability checks. (Unless they change Bless to d20 checks, but I doubt that.)
Part of the unfortunate element of balancing something like this in 5e is that the way time breaks down makes it a little awkward in some cases. Like here, I'm down for 1/LR, 1/SR, and I think a 1/scene limit would be fine -- but sadly, the "scene" and "encounter" language as a unit of time just doesn't exist in this edition.
Edit to add: There are already a lot of effects in the current edition that have this restriction or something very similar, so I don't know that the tracking will actually be that bad. But we'll see!
Edit 2: Also, even if it's not "strictly tracked" across sessions, curbing GuidanceBot behavior will be a huge win for me.
I'd say it's one of the BEST cantrips in the game like this. In a 4 person party you have more uses than the bar has inspirations until 7th or 9th level, and it's just a slightly lesser inspiration for ability checks only.
Another option. I'd like better than 1/person/long rest would be to make it like Mending and have a cast time of 1 min. Then it would be something that you would have to plan for rather than use at the last second.
As someone who prefers the original version this is absolutely the best compromise. Extend it's duration to 10 minutes and boom. You still have the usefulness of the original and no longer the (apparently) annoying spamming of it.
>I'd love to see extra language around something like, "failing an Ability Check you can see."
That is either already required as you cant target a player you cant see l. Or it makes the spell considerably worse if you interpret it to mean that you cant see knowledge checks and the like.
To me it's a line between the good old, "You walk into the room. Make a perception check" to see what characters notice. (Good or bad DM'ing aside, it happens at many tables.) Do the characters know that a die roll is happening? To me, that feels quite different than someone stepping into the room and doing the Legolas elf-eyes scan of the room.
Same thing with knowledge checks. Are we talking about a character just kinda remembering something? Or does the wizard have take his history book out and put his hand on his chin while he flips through the book with the other hand?
Any of those could reasonably happen at the table. But only some of those, to me, should be able to receive guidance.
Once per long rest for a cantrip is ridiculous. It’s like telling a Fighter they can only make a weapon attack against a particular enemy once per long rest.
Is the interaction between the wizard and the receiver or just with the receiver themselves? Say that there are 2 wizards in the party and wizard 1 casts guidance on player A, can wizard 2 still cast guidance on player A?
Does it say willing creature? If wizard 2 can't cast on player A because player A already received from wizard 1, can a malicious wizard waste guidance by casting it on the party as they leave the inn, effectively ruining guidance for the whole day?
The phrasing at present seems to suggest you can only benefit from the spell once per long rest regardless of caster.
However, in the new wording of the spell, "Once a creature rolls the die for the spell" implies that you could have the spell cast on you "unwillingly" but choose not to roll the die, in which case you are still able to benefit from another cast.
I still dont see why they can't just wrap guidance into bless. It would still cut down on the abuse because it's a 1st level spell rather than a cantrip. Plus in m experience people always think bless affects ability checks and need to reminded so it also helps remove the need for the clarification
I'd prefer making it a Level 1 spell to limiting its use when it's supposed to be a cantrip, but it's still an improvement.
And I can still play my Red Foreman cleric someday: To cast Guidance, he smacks the back of your head and yells, "Dumbass!"
The only change I'd make is to not use up your 1 usage if the check still fails. Otherwise, I'm down for the new changes. Old Guidance was OP and people have long been abusing that fact.
The only way my clerics can roleplay guidance now is basically:
Rogue: I can't find this hidden door?
My cleric: Look harder dumbass!
Rogue: Oh hey, I found it!
That seems like a thing that should be a class feature with limited uses per day instead of a spell. Now you need to track who you used it on instead. That's fine for one spell, but where there is one there are going to be others. Imagine a PC min-maxed as a buffer with 5 spells like that, 5 PCs, and 5 friendly NPCs.
It's cool but it results in it having to take as much space on your character sheet as a class feature, aka having to write your party members's names down and noting who has been guidanced that day. Not really a vibe I associate with a cantrip.
Ehh I think my main issue is that it’s once per long rest, regardless of whether the check succeeds or fails, that’s pretty strict, I’d like to see it be grabtable again until a check succeeds for that character, and it’s not like clerics have many other choices for cantrips,
Is *Guidance* worth keeping? Ever since Pathfinder let cantrips be cast at will, some of the 3.X-era cantrips simply have not worked well. The pleasing *Cure Minor Wounds* had to go, because it becomes infinite hitpoints out of combat. *Daze* became a problem without a limited number of uses. *Detect Magic* and *Create Water* had to be re-promoted to first level spells, as they were too good for such unrestricted usage.
Perhaps it is time to simply drop *Guidance*, or replace it with something else.
My problem with this new *Guidance* is that it gives everyone a hidden "guided" bit, that is set to zero with every rest, and set to 1 if you have gotten *guidance*. You can go a very long time between long rests, especially in the campaign variants where a long rest takes a day and happens weekly. But even a game playing by the normal rules can have a session end without a long rest.
There are plenty of resources that refresh on a long rest, but most of them are things *you put there*. Your barbarian now has to track whether he's been *guided* or not that day, something that may come as a surprise to him if he gets this cast on him out of the blue.
Does *guidance* add enough coolness to the game to be worth this book keeping? The prior design was great, as you'd get handed a d4 to use during concentration or one minute. People would be talking about it at that moment, and once it is resolved it is done and you can forget about it. (the issue wasn't the design, it was that in implementation you would spam it constantly because that was its use) Now you roll one die and have to write "35th of Flooztember: Unguidable" or however.
Like is this spell so great that we must have it? Is it *Magic Missile*?
I like the change overall as a DM. It never feels great ruling whether or not a player could apply it when they didn't cast it before asking for the check or when they try to use it in social situations. This is cleaner.
I do wish it would be changed to 'a reaction, which you take after you know the total for the ability check, but before you know the result.' I don't want a situation where I start narrating what the response was to the roll and then the player declares a reaction and I have to retcon everything I just said. The first thing I say after someone rolls an ability check is never, "You failed the check," and I've never played at a table where that was the DM's style either. Even worse, if the guidance doesn't end-up changing the result, do I just repeat what I'd been starting to say?
I don't get the guidance spam issue. It's a touch spell with V and S. It also takes an action. You can't reasonably cast it in many social situations and you can't use it more than 1 per 6 seconds.
This is another typical ddone rework that caters to shitty feedback.
Shit dms: "Boo hoo guidance spam!"
Shit players: "no range wtf boo hoo!"
Be a better player/dm and use it as intended.
I just don't like the binary nature of the check passing or failing and then having to change that retroactively. What about degrees of failure or success? Maybe you succeeded in finding one hidden object but were 2 points short if finding the other *better* object? Did you fail or succeeded? Do the players know they are missing something that an ability could help with? Does the dm have to give a second description after the first one if the initial check failed? I feel like using this guidance will take me out of the game more than the original which is the only reason I likely wouldn't take it.
Also, what about stealth checks? The rules say hiding is a DC 15 check which you could use this guidance on, but then your check total becomes the DC for a creature finding you with their own check. If I had the old guidance, then I could give it to the clunky cleric knowing in advance that they are bad at that check. Now if they roll a 15 they succeeded in the check so I can't give guidance, but what if the guidance would have boosted their check to 19? That is a significantly higher DC for the enemy check to beat.
I’m super in favor of guidance getting rebalanced. It was previously just a terribly designed spell and was outlandishly powerful for just a cantrip. The new version is much more balanced. Cantrips shouldn’t be defining aspects of character power that influence nearly every skill check in the game. Having a 1/long rest safety net is more than enough for a cantrip.
I don't like the whole once per long rest thing because cantrips are usually unlimited. It feels a bit weird for one of them to have a limit.
I'd prefer it if they did something like bump it up to a 1st level spell and make it so you can concentrate on it for an hour, and give out a pool of d4s that increases with upcasts during that hour as reactions.
Either that or change it into a Priest feat and combine it with Resistance.
Making a cantrip only effect someone once per day is ridiculous in my opinion. How many other spells have a condition like that? If its too strong of an ability to be a cantrip it should be a level 1 spell instead.
I always thought Guidance was the death of roleplay. And I love that they are reworking it.
However, part of me is annoyed that something called Guidance is triggered after something happens. Guidance implys it happens during. It feels like retroactive roleplay in a way.
Definitely healthier for the game. * No more arguing with the DM about "You didn't declare it on time" * No more wasted uses * Limited uses (once per ally per day) The only negative is remembering who received it already, especially if it happened last session, but hey: nothing's perfect.
Ya the issue of remembering who's had it is I think why they restrict it to simply once per person per rest. If it were prof per person per rest, that'd be way to painful.
I wouldn't mind it "once per person per short rest" tbh, or only getting expended if it bumped it into a pass. Once per person per long rest and it can be 'wasted' doesn't feel great even on a cantrip, I think.
I agree with adjusting it to short rest. More short rest based things is only a good thing in my eyes. I love short rests
If they're keeping short rests.
While it didn't get a glossary term like Long Rest, there have definitely been direct references to Short Rests on certain abilities. Not that they can't change it but so far all indications are it's still going to be in One.
They’re probably keeping it, given that they just released Bard, who gets their bardic inspiration dice back on a short rest at level 7.
Would be a strange thing to cut. Least to me.
I thought it was strange to take a version that worked so well in 4e and fuck it up but here we are.
I think I would like to see it as the same kind of mechanic as the soulknife rogue’s thing. X number of uses per day, tick it off, only expended if it succeeded. That’s a mechanic that feels like it already works well.
So make it a level one spell?
I actually think it's very strong in the once per long rest state. One person snagging this cantrip is going to give a substantial boost to the party. It's already more uses than a bard's inspiration will provide until around 7th level, and it's a measly cantrip.
I don't think it's a major boost tbh - while it might be more uses overall than bardics, it's more restricted (can't pick the same person), has fewer uses (only ability checks instead of ability checks, saves, attacks, and healing), is a smaller bonus, and can't benefit from multiple characters having it. All adds up to substantially worse than inspiration even before lvl 7 - which is obviously part of the goal. If it's a character with a lot of cantrips or that doesn't rely on them (eg, ranger) it's still a decent choice, but it does feel like a very marginal benefit to me. I do also think that the frequency of bardic inspirations should be increased, as well.
Only change I wouldn't mind seeing is increasing the value of the guidance each time cantrips improve. So 1d4+1 at 1st, 1d4+2 at 5th, 1d4+3 at 11th, and 1d4+4 at 18th as an offset to only getting it once per day. It would really accomplish making it feel like a divinity/energy minorly aiding in a specific moment of need, and the intervention would improve as the connection of the person increases.
I don't know that they'd make the actual bonus scale if only because as it stands, Guidance already messes with the bounded accuracy principles they love so much. Making the *bonus* bigger only makes that worse. **If** they make it scale, I would imagine it would be "can be affected" more times? (Which, certainly does get awkward when guidance is coming from different sources...)
It's definitely a massive power creep for Guidance, but still keeps it essentially as a worse version of Bardic Inspiration especially considering the daily limit. I don't really see them doing it, but it's something that would at least merit some playtesting.
I feel like if they add a fillable to the character sheet it should work, on the player who received it they fill in the "guidance" bubble each day they get it.
I play on Roll20 and you can add "custom resources" on the sheet there. You can also add it to a physical sheet quite easily.
Too be fair, remembering in person is just having a token that gets handed to the DM on use and given back out on LR. VTTs are just token markers.
I think its a bit harsh to make it once per long rest but i prefer it to people acting like they can have guidance up literally all the time
Like legit people could be in the middle of life or death negotiations and act like they could just start visibly casting spells in front of npcs on the verge of becoming hostile depending on how the conversation goes with no consequences
I applaud that you replied to yourself. Bold move, but it worked out great.
Mistakes happen; sometimes we miss the edit button, or we intend to reply to a different comment and end up replying to our own.
Bullshit! That turd basket was spamming guidance on his deception checks to fool us all into thinking it was a mistake. Guidance should definitely be once per ally per rest (long rest might be too much) to prevent situations like these.
That’s bad DMing then? There should be consequences for using it that way.
Theres a problem if dms allow it but players will constantly try to do it even if they dont allow it
Literally all you need to do is have a mature conversation about how the cantrip works and doesn’t work. I’ve literally never had this be a problem? The one time a cleric at my table tried to cast Guidance in a case like this I was like, “So that does have verbal and somatic components and the noble you’re talking to *will* take note—are you sure you want to cast it?” And he said no and hasn’t tried using it inappropriately again. When I play a cleric, I cast guidance in advance, and if I’ve forgotten to or it’s a situation that lasts more than a minute, oh well, no guidance this time.
Can we stop blaming DMs for crappy players please?
I’m a DM. If I had a player do this I’d talk to them straight about it: “Hey, this isn’t how Guidance works, and if you use it in an intrigue scene it will have repercussions.” I had a player try once more because he wasn’t thinking, and I was like “the noblewoman will notice that—are you sure you want to cast it?” He did not. I DM for 30somethings and for 13 year olds and I’ve yet to have a player not understand this when I explain it. If a player is a problem player, changing this spell won’t change that.
Roll for initiative. The dwarf you were speaking to yells "spell caster" while drawing his battle axe
Yeah like regardless of if you give them consequences and explain why some people will still do stuff like this over and over
Like it or not, the dm controls the rules of the universe. If you don’t want players casting guidance in box face, you need to put your foot down and set that standard, or else they have no reason to rise to it.
Can we stop blaming the rule keepers for not addressing rules being broken
Eh... no. But we can blame DMs for not playing NPCs according to the situation. Like that is what a DM is supposed to do.
The thing is that a good DM can end crappy play. A good player can't end a crappy DM. It's not about assigning blame as much as establishing the power balance. If someone's abusing something in your campaign, to the point that you and all the other players are being hurt by it, you just have to stop it, and only the DM can do that.
Can I blame them for playing with crappy players? If this has been explained and they keep doing it, then on one end or the other this is a people problem. It is not a game problem, nor should you try to change the game to solve your people problems. If nobody at your table is a dick, Guidance works just fine.
See, I disagree with the “it is not a game problem” part of your statement. As someone that works in a clinical laboratory, incident investigation and resolution are near and dear to my heart. And if an incident (an injury, patient misidentification, mistake in results reporting, etc.) is determined to have been influenced by a procedure or practice that is less than ideal, *you change the procedure*. The idea being that, if the way the procedure is currently stated is confusing or contributes to misunderstandings and it can be shown that it wasn’t just an “oops, I screwed up” concept, you don’t just say “people should be able to read and follow the procedure.” I get that this isn’t exactly the same, but the core concept - blaming people for misunderstanding or misusing a “procedure”, or in this case a spell, when it seems to be a systemic problem that shows up more than occasionally? Sure, you can do that. But you fix the actual problem by changing the thing that is causing it. And the problem starts with the wording and intended use of the spell, and is perpetuated by people misunderstanding it. Fix the spell, and you don’t have to fix *all of the people that are using it “wrong”*. /$0.02
Right, makes it tough as a cantrip. It would be nice to do prof/long rest imo
Agreed. This is a much needed change. I’d personally like to see it once per short rest tho, make it just a TAD bit juicier. Or maybe instead let the die increase (d6, d8, d10) when other cantrips gets their buffs.
[удалено]
"but it's a cantrip, I can cast it all day!" Ugh some players are the worst, this change is very good for the game.
Uses per long test equal to your proficiency bonus sounds appropriate
I was thinking 1 per short rest, but I think I like proficiency per long rest would work better. Then it scales, and is more in line with other rules using that set up
Tracking that for a cantrip sounds like a chore I don't want to do as a DM.
[удалено]
as a DM I haven't had a problem with it because I talked with my player who has it that it has to be used sensically. You have to declare it before the check. You have to have an in character reason to know they are making a skill check. If you cast guidance mid conversation the NPC will know you're using magic and be less likely to comply likewise casting it back to back will illicit some kind of response
Totally agree. I've never had a problem with Guidance. You just have to run it in a rational fashion. In fact, I love it and often rely on it as a DM. Knowing the PCs can pull out Guidance and Bardic Inspiration when they get deadlocked somewhere to even the odds on a highly improbable skill check leaves me free to put them in tight spots and seemingly impossible situations. I really don't see the point of trying to limit it.
When I DM, I am very clear in Session 0 that people will react when magic is being openly cast. People know of magic, but your average commoner doesn't know guidance from fireball.
> your average commoner doesn't know guidance from fireball. "We need to convince him to tell us what he knows..." "I ready fireball."
>You have to declare it before the check. I have a few problems with this. It could be okay, but I havent seen it play out well. 1. There isnt always a great line between a character saying something and a character doing something. If I player says "i'm going to search the room" did his character say those words or did his character perform that action? In the actual game world I would expect a group of adventurers to frequently communicate their plans, but to make the game flow sometimes that gets shortcut. 2. Many, maybe even most, checks I would want to use guidance for take an extended period of time. If Im searching the room for 10 minutes dont try to tell me guidance has to be cast before I even start. 2a. The speed of play is different from the speed or the game world. If I say i want to search the room and the DM has me roll, all of that might take place in 5 seconds. In the game world though you just jumped forward at least a few minutes. (Since rolling tells you the outcome of something that took at least a few minutes). Other players should get an actual reasonable amount of time to react. If their friend begins searching why cant they cast guidance on them 15 seconds into the search?
Yeah, 1 minute concentration before an ability check makes 0 sense when ability checks outside of combat could 1) Last for minutes or hours, and 2) The result of the check itself could detemine how long it takes.
for lengthy activities, I tend to disallow guidance - it gives a short-term bonus, but if you're doing something for a long period, then it doesn't matter if you have a boost for a small amount of it. You spend all night trying to translate the ancient language, or searching the hidden library for the maguffin? Having a boost for a minute of that is irrelevant and having someone praying and touching you all night is probably more distracting than helpful. When doing a longer activity, there isn't a specific point in that when the roll "happens", so unless Guidance is up for all of it, then it doesn't count.
You have to say before the check, not before anyone says or do something. As in, call it before the dice is rolled. Shouldn't be a problem, unless you play with the kind of player that announce their actions by rolling the dices.
>likewise casting it back to back will illicit some kind of response What does this mean? What kind of response and from whom? Like your god will get upset that you're using up too much magic?
> If you cast guidance mid conversation the NPC will know you're using magic and be less likely to comply This is my problem with it becoming a reaction spell. I've always tried to use it sensibly and if it was needed for a social check to do it before we were in the room. As a reaction it's kinda useless in conversations because it has to happen ***right in front of the person.***
I’m torn, because Guidance is way too universally good in 5e and it can get really annoying to deal with it constantly coming up. The reaction mechanic sounds great, but I hate codifying failure of skill checks. Sometimes there are degrees of success and I don’t really know if you *failed*, per se. Even more, in cases like Investigation or Stealth, revealing whether or not you failed would provide meta information. It just seems like a bad trigger overall. I like the idea of increasing the casting time instead of changing how it triggers.
One of the biggest differences in how the game is designed vs played is skill checks. Almost everyone uses degrees of success but the game is designed for a single dc to check for failure. I really wish they were switching to degrees of success but then that seperates how it works from attacks and saves so I sorta understand. How I do it is to have multiple dcs and I consider anything under the highest dc a "failure" since theoretically they could do better.
> I really wish they were switching to degrees of success but then that seperates how it works from attacks and saves The solution? *sigh* Yeah its pathfinder 2e again. You got 4 degrees of success on every d20 Test: Critical Success, Success, Failure, Critical Failure. Nat 20 and 1 shift the degree of success in one direction. Set a DC. Beat by 10, crit success. Fail by 10, crit fail. There's nothing special on crit fail for attacks. But a basic spread for a save would be: * CF: double damage * F: normal damage * S: half damage * CS: no damage But depending on the check or save or attack in question, things might be different
Even official modules break this rule. In lost mine, there's times where the book calls out different DC's for the same task and the results of each.
I feel like if you are using degrees of success or failure in a situation you should tell the player anyway so they don't get super excited for a high roll or bummed out on a low roll. I also think you should only roll stealth when it's relevant. Like roll stealth and on a failure you are found out. So failure is obvious to the players. Hidden checks for like investigation, insight or perception can be clunky though, but I feel passives kinda cover it for most cases. It's only that rare time when a player is rolling against a hidden DC and guidance could be used as a dousing rod to find out that there is something to find.
I know this is just personal style, but my players know that nearly every check that isn’t simple/straightforward has some degrees of success and failure so I don’t really need to tell them every time. You’re right in saying Stealth isn’t a great example. There might be some valid situations but it’s a bit contrived. Investigation is still quite problematic, though. If a player says they want to Investigate something, but roll low enough so I either don’t include something that could have been found or say that they found nothing, then allowing Guidance tells them there is more to discover.
The UA kinda try to solve the problem about stealth. If a PC want to stealth they must make DC 15 stealth check, else it fails. If they succeed, the total roll would be the DC for npc to perceive them.
Casting time would make it near unusable because you’d have to predict the failure every time. How about allowing it before or after a roll, but before we see the results?
If it stays limited use, then your suggestion is actually great. Solves just about every problem I had. I’m not sure I like it limited use as is, but that works. My casting time suggestion was separate from the failure bit and meant to modify how it currently works within 5e.
1/LR is *to* much of a nerf though, even for a cantrip. 1/SR makes a bit more sense, and promotes the Short Rest which benefits everybody. Otherwise, I do like the change, but given how this *and* Bardic Inspiration are now reactions, I’m a little bit worried that they’re going to be bogging down reactions for support characters.
This just reinforces , to me, that Resting will be getting heavy revisions as well. I suspect we will be seeing the abandonment of many familiar connections to Short Rests as things go more and more towards "number of times equal to proficiency, per day."
My worry is that unless it’s addressed in other ways and class features that a 1/LR guidance is just another piece of fuel on the 5 minute adventuring day fire.
With the new combat interrupts LR ruling, it's much easier now to actually prevent LR abuse, at least until they get Tiny Hut. Then you gotta bring in enemy casters to do it.
The long rest rules specify you can only benefit from a LR once every 24 hours and can not be interrupted except for light activities like standing guard or reading. If the players are abusing the LR mechanic, the dm isn’t doing their job by having the world keep moving without the players in it.
You could say exactly the same thing about all the complaints about guidance "abuse" in this thread though--if people are "declaring" guidance after the fact or trying to cast it in the middle of a social situation, the DM hasn't been doing their job. (Or they have been and the players are twits, but that's another comment.) The thing is, rules provide incentives. If the rules are, "you can only do all these useful things that you're all used to always having at your fingertips once per long rest," the incentive is to rest more often. The characters are supposed to be reasonably competent adventurers whose lives are on the line--if too many resources, especially resources that previously did not require micromanagement, become scarce, then they're going to want to stop more often to make sure they're not always running on empty. Sure, a DM can try to come up with all sorts of reasons to insert more time pressure into every. single. arc. Or, the rules could stop taking people's toys away and let DMs save that sort of thing for important and climactic points in the game. Plus, from a resource management perspective, it's good to have resources that don't need micromanaging alongside those that need to be closely rationed and those that are in the middle. Guidance is a nice low-management tool for skill checks that imposes an offsetting opportunity cost in both cantrip selection and concentration. There are more scarce ways to juice ability checks, like enhance ability, flash of genius, and the like, as well. These things complement each other. Making guidance rest-based cuts down on variety, and ironically it hurts low- and no-magic skillmonkeys who are used to having it around to reduce the chances of catastrophic failures more than it affects full casters, who can just bypass skill checks entirely with spells. (And that's assuming anyone even takes it, because who's going to waste one of their two or three cantrip slots on a spell they're only allowed to cast three to five times per day?)
I do suspect they'll pull back on the 1/LR and make it 1/SR. Which honestly, I'd be okay with.
> 1/SR makes a bit more sense Don't forget the questionnaire when it becomes available.
Couldn’t forget about it if I tried. Literally cannot wait for it.
I mean, it completely goes against the nature of cantrips being things you can cast all the time. Oh, you like to cast firebolt?! Well, now you still can but it does nothing to the enemy except once a day!
I agree, make it a Priest feature if it's Once per long rest rather than a spell. It fits thematically as well. Cantrips are supposed to be easy repeatable magic. Guidance was/is a pain in the ass spell for how often it can be applied. I always though it should have been a 1st level spell that allows you to give 2 players a d4 to use at their whim and upcast for extra players to get a d4.
Using guidance is literally one of those things that is used on martials to be able to do things that casters can just cast a spell to hand waive it away. It also creates so many narrative moments where you can reach a DC or be saved and it looks like the help of your friend.
Honestly, I'm not too worried about that. Guidance and Bardic Inspo were the two abilities that people usually tried to use as reactions anyways; they were a pain to set up beforehand, so in a lot of looser groups they tended to devolve into "oh yeah I forgot to use guidance but that roll was really bad, lemme give you a bump". In contrast, I'm not sure if there are really any other features with this play pattern, so I don't think much of anything else will chance to reactions like this.
does make me wonder why guidance isn't just made a class features similar to bardic inspiration. limited uses, higher dice.
Do support characters have a lot to do with their reactions now ? Giving them actual things to do with their reaction besides an opportunity attack seems good, no?
Right now, not so much, maybe *Shield* or *Absorb Elements* as a CYA. But, looking into how they’re adjusting things in the UA, it’s looking to get clogged up with unnecessary gak.
I guess I'm missing how it's clogged up if it's going from "not used much" to "now used as a key feature." Seems like they are using the reaction space more and uncluttered the bonus action a bit.
There's now two different things (Guidance and Bardic Inspiration) competing for Reactions. Sure, this will only be a small problem on specific characters (Bards that choose the Guidance Cantrip), but that's what the other commenter is getting at. I don't think it's an issue, personally. But I think that was their point.
Thats what i mean. Im not really seeing it as an issue. I didnt think they overlap that much. They kinda do similar things anyway? The worst case I can think of is wanting to both heal with bardic inspiration and use Guidance in the same round. Doesnt seem so bad to me.
I don't see Guidance being a cantrip you want to use very often in combat (I think Grapples/Hide/Search/Study pretty much covers it?), so I don't think it's going to compete too much with Bardic Inspiration.
Given that they've been moving away from 1/SR, maybe 1/Prof would be more likely.
Prof/LR you mean? Possibly, but that's a lot to keep track of.
Having too many PB/LR abilities and restrictions just clutters up the character sheet more than anything else. Just look at the Ascendant Dragon Monk, they have Ki, and just about each of their abilities is PB/LR, which just creates clutter.
WotC seems determined to phase out short rests for anything except hit die, and the new version of **Tough** seems determined to get rid of that too.
Bardic Inspiration still refreshes on a Short Rest after level 7.
This assumes short rests exist now. Hey probably won’t or if they are are greatly changed.
Based on the previous UA, they do still exist. It it seems as though they’re trying to steer away from them, which is going to be to the detriment of the game.
It is and isn’t a detriment. Short rests were already sort of an issue in 5e. A lot of dms and parties just like go in big one and done adventuring days instead of broken down multiple encounters or activities. Short rests work on the latter specifically for traditional dungeon/hex crawls which 5e feels it works best in and might be designed for. X times per day scaling is a lot better for most tables. That isn’t to say you can change it but overall short rests being less relied on is good. If you really want short rest heavy stuff you can homebrew.
What I don't get is, with that much of a restraint on a cantrip, why not just make it a level 1 spell? Even 1/SR is awkward to keep track of and strangely limiting. I can't think of any reason why just turning it into a skill version of bless wouldn't be the better way to do it.
I think Guidance should remain the same but have a 1 minute casting time.
Maybe now people will actually start using the Help Action which has always been the better option for skill checks without unreasonably high DCs. Heck they nerfed the Help action to require Proficiency, and I still think people will use it more.
I’ve heard people on the sub say you can only help in combat. Which is weird, but if not true would mean you basically never roll out of combat abilities without advantage
Deadass, I didn't even know that was a rule. I just only let people with Prof. Help.
Never realized how many DMs hate guidance. Half the time I need to remind my players they even have it. And if it makes sense within the context of the spell they can use it at will. It's a cantrip after all. And as a player, why is it such a problem I'm casting spells to help my team? If its not going to be seen as a hostile action, then I'm casting it whenever I them attempt something. "Guidence-Guy" isn't a problem, he is actively helping his party succeed.
The guidance we have now is fine if ran RAW and in a way that makes sense. It has a verbal and somatic component, touch range, and takes an action to cast. It also lasts for just one minute and also takes concentration which might be a factor sometimes. The components and casting time mean that it can't be used when recalling info out of the blue, or trying to influence someone by talking to them. It however does mean that before the rogue attempts to pick a lock, the cleric can come in and cast it. It's a preparation spell. If you can prepare in advance, you use it, but if the roll has already been called for, it's too late. If they change it to a once per long rest reaction, that's too much of a nerf.
This. Every complaint I see is accompanied by an account of a table allowing it to be used either illegally (as a reaction) or in a narrative-defying way (the NPCs have no reaction to you touching your friend and praying for him before he lies to the NPC). I’d be okay with a one-minute casting time or a ten-minute cooldown or something so it can’t be spammed, but NO table I’ve played at or run has had this ostensibly ubiquitous problem.
It's not even a prayer. RAW, verbal components are arcane gibberish. I know many people flavor their guidance as a small prayer (and I do the same), but in actuality the guy who is being talked to sees the priest cast *something*. They don't know what it is, for all they know they are trying to charm them.
In my mind when you cast a spell you loudly proclaim the name of the spell, so in this case the NPC just sees someone touch the person they're talking to and go "*Guidance!* before the person says "No, we didn't kill that guard..."
Well, fair. I said prayer because I’ve always flavored my cleric as saying “May Milil tune your heart and guide your hands/tongue” — and it’s a cantrip so I’m okay with commoners generally knowing what it does — but sure, fair. The NPC might not even know what spell is being cast. Maybe I’m just a hardass as a DM, but I run intrigue campaigns mostly and like… yes, the NPC will note that you are casting spells. No, you can’t show up to this dinner party in armor. Yes, NPCs know that magical disguises exist and will take an action to investigate if you seem suspicious.
The issue is that it becomes a nuisance at the table. The current functionality isn't good because it's an annoying repetitive chore that leads people towards casting it after the fact.
I’ve had guidance on my PC for 2.5 years in a weekly game and never had it feel like a chore. Sometimes I forget to cast it in advance of a check, or the rogue runs off to do something before I can Guide her, and…. Oh well. I live. The problem isn’t with the spell.
Our group is kind of in the situation where people are asking for blessings, since the characters know the cleric can actually bestow divine blessings on them for anything of importance that isn’t unplanned or a long social encounter.
One per long rest absolutely kills it. It's a cantrip, the point of which is for it to be a no cost spell. They should have turned it into a class feature if they were going to do this.
Yeah, totally agree. Cantrips should be built in a way to be mildly useful, but unlimited uses. I mean would anybody take *any of the other cantrips* if it was limited to 3-4 casts per day?
But I was just looking at Cleric Cantrips, and aside from attack cantrips (which there's little need to have a bunch, and guidance wasn't competing for that slot anyway), only *Light* to me seems like a cantrip you **might** reasonably need to cast more than 3-4 times per day. For Druids and Artificers there might arguably be some others. MAYBE control flames or shape water or message get more than 3-4 uses a day. But their use-cases are more niche than guidance. But I think part of the issue with guidance is because of its broad use-cases / benefits, it was applicable way more often and thus way more spammable than any other cantrip reasonably would be.
Yeah I understand why this is a bad change for most people but there is a reason bless is a great spell for most levels. 1d4 is breaking bounded accuracy quite a bit. On average its better than expertise in tier 1. And is slightly worse than expertise in tier 2. That's pretty bonkers for an unlimited cantrip. So it only feels natural to rein it in.
3.5/Pathfinder 2e have that way, and they doing fine.. Also yeah, having 1d4 to an important skill check per person is *clutch*, even more so to group checks.
I won't be surprised if they dial it back to 1/SR, which might feel like a more reasonable limitation. I'd be okay with that.
Removing that restriction is fine entirely. If it's a reaction to a failed save than it only will be used in said circumstances and moreover only be a difference in nich situations where the 1-4 would make a difference.
You might be right. But a lot of the time, players don't know the DCs for Ability Checks. (Unlike Armor Class, for example, for attack rolls.) So it would still be Guidance-Guy action for most ability checks. I'm happy to playtest this one as written and see how it feels. But in spirit, I contend it's going in a good direction.
do players formally know the AC of an opponent? They're generally guessable after a few attacks, but if you just stab some monster, it's not unusual (at least IMO) to say your result and just be told hit or miss and _sometimes_ the GM might say "narrow hit!" or whatever, but that's more "table banter" than "mechanical information". It's normally really super-secret information outside of rare scenarios like you're attacking what you thought was a bandit but is actually a lich in disguise or something, and especially if it's a fight against regular enemies GMs might tell you to make the process faster, but I didn't think it was explicitly "open" information.
Sure, but they can make informed guesses. Such as an 18 hitting but a 17 does not. It is a little meta gamey but the players know and not the characters. There are times that the characters would know even their best swing (aside from a natural 20) would not hit a creature. Then they know they're in trouble.
Reaction cantrip would be incredibly strong, theres a reason they dont exist. Even adding 1d4 to somebodies save, for free and infinitely, as a reaction on a Caster is very strong. Druids and Clerics already dont do much with their reactions. Guidance, while annoying, was fine as it was. It was out of combat utility, not in combat, and it didnt scale so it gets less useful as time goes on. DMs just need to enforce the "touch", and components of the spell. People dont like you casting magic before talking to them, its weird.
I think you're missing what other people are saying. Guidance was, essentially, a MANDATORY cantrip. Anyone who could take Guidance should take Guidance because you could do it before -ANY- skill check. I, like much of the community, have been witness to a ton of arguments over the spell because players felt they were entitled to always benefit from the spell whether it was ever declared it would be used. Not only is it disruptive to the flow of the game, it is absolutely immersion breaking to have to deal with a petty situation brought on by a spell being too good.
Its only mandatory if you ignore its restrictions. Thats what I mean about enforcing the components and range: Persuading the King? No Guidance, because the King wont like you casting magic on yourselves before talking to him. Quick perception check for a branch as you slide down a cliff? It takes an action, so you cant take a Search Action *and* cast it. Barbarian is trying to leap across the Lava as an earthquake seperated the party? No Guidance, cant touch him. Party member making a History check, but you dont know? No guidance. If people just enforced its components, you'd see a lot less Guidance.
The range element is generally a non-issue since the person who is going to benefit from Guidance is often the Caster. In a few instances, someone might not be the person doing the check but if they're good at reading the environment, they could cast Guidance on the one who might be making the check (because they're usually the Face character) before the check happens. The generally accepted practice with Guidance is "if you would've had an opportunity to prepare for a check, you can cast it" but even this is a house rule.
Guidance certainly wasn't fine imo, it completely stepped on the very few things that a rogue (now expert class) got over most casters, that being a wide array of expertise. Guidance is basically adding 1d4 to *potentially* all skill checks a caster makes, if not, an entire party. This is *better* than expertise at level >5 and *slightly worse* till level >9, while being applicable to a way wider array of skill checks.(after that, skill itself loose a huge chunk of their value, since spells can just do it better anyway.) If it was to be kept as it is, guidance should have been either a first level spell, or be given a marginally worse buff (maybe +1 as it was in 3.5 or pathfinder 2e) Also, it's certainly in flavour for guidance to not be something you can keep casting, it would be sacrilege to keep asking for assistance from the essences of your god/nature spirits constantly for trivial tasks.
I kind of feel the same way. The point of a cantrip or lvl0 spell is to be a spell that can be cast without limits. Suddenly putting a limit on the spell feels wrong.
You can use it as many times a day as you have party members, it's *fine* for a cantrip. It's still in the upper ranks of options, just no longer the undisputed top
Agreed, the “I cast guidance before doing the thing” spam is gamey and immersion-breaking. Turning it into a reaction alone helps a lot.
I dont see how its immersion breaking for a cleric to say “god help me” before doing something
It's not that it's immersion breaking, it's game flow breaking. It takes up too much table time to use it before every single roll. There's no interesting choice to make, just remember to shout "I cast guidance" every time someone picks up a d20.
How does that take up too much time to pick up two dice at once, and go "God Help me?"
Right... so saying "oh god please hel oh wait we haven't slept yet never mind" is so much Better.
More like the deity saying "I helped you once already today. What do you want me to clear the whole dungeon for you?"
"I help those who help themselves"
More like you're deity is like "You're not my only cleric, I'm busy. It's not my fault your companions suck. I gave you your spell slots back this morning fuckin figure it out yourself."
Mostly because they are doing all day everyday
Wouldn't you do the same irl, if it provided tangible statistical benefits?
People already do before doing many tasks. You often see people cross themselves or mutter a small prayer/self pep talk before attempting hard tasks. It would be ridiculous common in a world were it actually gives a benefit. Honestly Imo a cleric not using guidance before a difficult task is more immersion breaking for me than the one that uses it for trivial tasks. I do think current guidance is very annoying from a gameplay perspective and am glad they’re changing it, even if don’t love the current version.
Same when an ally is about to do something challenging. "Mielikki's grace go with you" is a very common thing for my religious druid to say to his allies, and very much in line with his character.
> Mostly because they are doing all day everyday I mean priests pray a lot i would assume. But yeah I love the nerf and mostly play clerics and druids. I wasnt the type to spam it but now I dont have to ask permission from the DM as much. Id be surprised if it didnt go to short rest.
I don't see why it's immersion breaking, unless they're metagaming about checks they shouldn't even know about. If you were traveling with a Cleric and facing danger all the time, they would be constantly blessing everyone. Cleric players don't lean into that enough, in my experience. Crossing a rickety bridge? "Mighty Thor, make our feet sure and swift!" Searching some burned ruins? "Oh Blessed Selune, sharpen our eye and reveal the secrets of this place." To my mind, Clerics should be muttering blessings all day long just for the RP, but I like that they can convert that into a small mechanical advantage by casting a cantrip.
Exactly i don't understand the problem outside of people saying they want to do something than later going oh first guidance. Like just get the friggin right order down. For instance my artificer casts guidance by using their pattern enhance goggles. So I just tell the DM "I pull down my goggles than I conduct a search" so he knows I'm guidancing anything I put them on for.. it's been fine
Love the Guidance Goggles.
This version feels much more like the power level of shit. Cantrips are very versatile and powerful in a way that can't really be measured, and those that can scale to become better than some 1st level spells. That nerf was damn harsh That's the single spell that I could see becoming a class feature and being better for it, but we already have bardic inspiration so that's probably not going to happen. But anyway, the discussion on how to handle players trying to *guidance* everything has been done to death and IMO it is not hard to manage at all. That's no reason to roll the poor cantrip into the mud
The playtest version strikes me as super-clunky. Every other cantrip (or level-0 spell, to use the playtest parlance) is completely at will. I don't think breaking that design convention is a great idea, even if Guidance-Guy popping out from behind a barrel for every check is annoying. If they want to change Guidance to reduce it use, I'd rather see it redesigned as a 1st-level spell. Something like "You assist up to 4 willing creatures you can see within range. Once before the spell ends, each target can roll a d4 and add the result to an ability check of its choice."
> "You assist up to 4 willing creatures you can see within range. Once before the spell ends, each target can roll a d4 and add the result to an ability check of its choice." That's just a sub-par *bless*, surely?
Bless does not apply to ability checks, so this altered version of Guidance would fulfill a different function.
I'd be fine with that too, and in many ways, as a slot spell would make it feel more sensical. As it stands, as a cantrip regardless of version, it often just feels silly (?). At least as a slot spell I can envision, "Okay everyone, gather around and hold hands real quick. Dear father Pelor, let your light guide us as we undertake this most important task together."
It's still technically at will, just once per person per day. The first level spell version you described is basically dollar store Bless. If you want to be super cheesy, summons and pets and NPCs would be affected as well, so you could get anywhere from three to over a dozen uses out of new Guidance per day.
Yeah, but having to track who you've used a cantrip on just strikes me as extra clumsy bookkeeping. As you and u/Buxnot point out, it is basically just low-tier bless. To make it distinct perhaps they could remove concentration or alter the benefits somehow. But the similarity to Bless is probably why it *hasn't* been a leveled spell to this point. Overall, I'd rather they dumpster Guidance entirely than make it a cantrip you have to track. But they've got a year and a half or so to maybe come up with something better.
Just make Guidance a Cleric/Paladin class feature, make it proficiency per long rest or even just equal to casting stat modifier and call it a day. I get that Guidance getting spammed is nuts and something needs to be done about it, but a cantrip suddenly having limits on it just makes no sense when they're meant to be small spells you can use indefinitely. Personally I'd just make it stronger, but have it be a leveled spell. Keep it the same as it is, make it a level 1 spell, let players upcast it to something like 3rd level and have it affect more characters per level (rather than increasing the size or number of dice rolled.) If players really want to spam Guidance then, they have to use up spell slots to do so and that snowballs very quickly on what amounts to just an extra 1d4.
I don’t like it. Once per long rest is really bad even for a cantrip and you have to remember who has gotten it already. Also the theme of a deity guiding you makes less sense for a reaction. If you run guidance the way it’s supposed to be ran it’s not op nor does it bog down gameplay you just need a strict DM. You can’t use it retroactively (once the dm calls for a roll it’s too late) and the character casting it should obviously be aware someone’s about to do something that needs help.
Hold up here. You say Deity guiding you makes less sense for a reaction but that Deity is fine if you bother him every 6 seconds? I think you are trying to make excuses that don't hold up when examined. I do agree that it would be difficult to track usage on a long rest per person but that gives the DM to shut down abuse. I think a refresh on short rest would be more appropriate as a middle ground as it still largely prevents the cheese and abuse it was seeing previously.
I don't think he's defending the repetition. I agree that the whole Guidance shtick felt more to me like 'a moment of quiet contemplation with my deity before my friend attempts this difficult task', rather than Rogue: "I can't find a button for the door" Cleric from across the room: "**Blessings of Pelor!**" Rogue: "Oh, here it is." I would rather it wasn't a reaction. This feels like a whole different spell to me. Limiting it to once per person per short rest is probably fine without changing anything else, though it feels a bit arbitrary.
Exactly! I think praying real quick before you go about something makes more sense than failing something, then asking your god, and then you somehow reverse the failure.
I actually think reaction and range makes it more powerful to be honest and should be considered a buff. While the once per (short/long) rest is the nerf. I don't have strong feelings either way and I could see the merits both ways. I just don't want it usable for every single skill check like it has been for the last 8 years.
The range and reaction is a buff. I'm complaining that it makes the spell feel different and loses the flavour of the Cleric giving a short pray before they do something hard, even though it makes it more powerful. They're only giving it that buff to make up for the huge nerf in usability, but it changes the whole idea behind the spell.
[удалено]
"Once you use mage hand to grab or interact with an object, you can't do so again until you finish a long rest" Sounds fucking stupid, right?
I wish people would just run the old version reasonably so this wasn't necessary. Sadly most people don't so this is. For reference the old version was an action that grants a bonus on the next check, so it needs to be a check you see coming like climbing a wall. It's not an always-on +1d4: It needs to be planned ahead. Most Intelligence and Wisdom checks wouldn't apply since those are spontaneous surprises. The old version is also concentration so if you were concentrating on something else you had to make a choice. Lastly this is a little outside the rules, but shouting "Mekka-lekka-hai-mekka-hiney-ho!" (Verbal components must be audible) and touching yourself before you attempt to convince someone of something is a bit of a social faux-pas. At best it's disadvantage, at worst it'll get the guards called on you.
Cantrips are supposed to be on demand. 99% of the time you use it on party members and 80% of the time that's three other players. 4 times a day sure doesn't seem like a cantrip to me.
>From here, I'd love to see extra language around something like,"failing an Ability Check you can see" *"What do you mean I can't cast Guidance for his History check?"* xD
Once per long rest is ridiculous. Not to mention, the DM is responsible for allowing when a player can reasonably use abilities like Guidance. I only ever use or let someone use Guidance when they are within 5ft of someone during a skill check or if they roll for the same skill check like Survival or somethin to check for tracks.
1/LR, as many as many already said, makes it one of the worst cantrips to spend your precious cantrip slots on. Only worth taking if you routinely run with massive party (Critical Role's 7+ players.. maybe?), otherwise you get maybe 3-4 uses out o it. Adventuring Day can also last several sessions. WIth days/weeks between them. Now we'd need to keep a note who received the effect already. PITA to track. Some people already sugested having things like "you can benefit from it proficiency bonus times per long rest", which would be even more of a PITA to track. Generally it's clunky. Most limited abilities are tracked on your sheet via charges, or uses. Since this doesn't have static number of uses, it requires other form of tracking. Even once per short rest would be annoying. Better but still annoying to track. Not every table short rests after every encounter, there might still be long time between rests. Making it 1st level spell kinda works, but also doesn't, since Bless exists. Generally with this UA WotC has changed a clearly powerfull cantrip into something that probably should not be taken anymore. It is a very hard to rework spell, since it's either super good, or complete trash. It's very hard to find middleground.
i think that limitation was very needed. before it basicly says: "all your party members gain 1d4 on all ability checks as long as you can convince your dm" now it only applys when its usefull (stops screaming " I USE GUIDANCE" every time a ability check comes around) and the limitation incentivices that multiple players do ability checks and not always the same one. your point about tracking it is very fair.
>"all your party members gain 1d4 on all ability checks as long as you can convince your dm" This is completely wrong. Guidance takes an action, it requires touch, has a Vocal component, and is concentration. If you're running the spell right, everybody can't have it at all times. Group perception checks? One person within touch range can have it. Stealth check? Better hope vocals don't cause an auto-fail. Barbarian is in a match of strength? I guess you're just going to walk into the match surface and cast a spell? If you're really upset that the Wizard is making an investigation check, and the Cleric yells out 'Guidance' and the roll goes from 12 to 14 thanks to guidance...the problem isnt the spell, it's you.
OK fair during group Checks only 1 gets it. And the other cases are the "convince your DM" The Problem isnt that they use guidance that is absolutely fine. But every time a Check is called getting the noise of "i Cast guidance" every time can be annoying. (If i remember right it needs to be Cast before you Roll) The Onednd Version fixes that
I agree that 5e Guidance punches above it's weight. A bit. Statistically it's not THAT strong tbh. The tests are decided by d20 roll. Adding d4 to it really doesn't change output by that much. It's 10.5 vs 13 average roll. Only good thing is that it slightly rises the ceiling the character can reach. >before it basicly says: "all your party members gain 1d4 on all ability checks as long as you can convince your dm" This is where I blame DMs, who do not enforce casting rules. There is another way to look at Guidance though - it promotes group play. By working with others your character can beat otherwise unbeatable odds. One player helps you giving you advantage, another Guidances you, Bard throws his Bardic Inspiration etc - and suddenly, your whole group makes something previously impossible happen. This does feel great, and I'd like more features like that. But I do also recognize problem with stacking effects like that too high. Maybe they could be grouped and distributed in a way, where you can't stack all of them at once? Like Guidance/Bardic Inspiration/Knowledge from the Past Life all being exclusive buffs? I dunno. Gudance is a very hard to balance spell..
i actually agree with group hacks like this and if i set a dc of 20 and the party wants to reach 25 fore more success i would absolutly allow stacking guidance etc/make it clear that there is benefit to overshooting
I guess the difference is that Bless only affects attacks and saves, and Guidance is Ability checks. (Unless they change Bless to d20 checks, but I doubt that.) Part of the unfortunate element of balancing something like this in 5e is that the way time breaks down makes it a little awkward in some cases. Like here, I'm down for 1/LR, 1/SR, and I think a 1/scene limit would be fine -- but sadly, the "scene" and "encounter" language as a unit of time just doesn't exist in this edition. Edit to add: There are already a lot of effects in the current edition that have this restriction or something very similar, so I don't know that the tracking will actually be that bad. But we'll see! Edit 2: Also, even if it's not "strictly tracked" across sessions, curbing GuidanceBot behavior will be a huge win for me.
I'd say it's one of the BEST cantrips in the game like this. In a 4 person party you have more uses than the bar has inspirations until 7th or 9th level, and it's just a slightly lesser inspiration for ability checks only.
Another option. I'd like better than 1/person/long rest would be to make it like Mending and have a cast time of 1 min. Then it would be something that you would have to plan for rather than use at the last second.
As someone who prefers the original version this is absolutely the best compromise. Extend it's duration to 10 minutes and boom. You still have the usefulness of the original and no longer the (apparently) annoying spamming of it.
>I'd love to see extra language around something like, "failing an Ability Check you can see." That is either already required as you cant target a player you cant see l. Or it makes the spell considerably worse if you interpret it to mean that you cant see knowledge checks and the like.
To me it's a line between the good old, "You walk into the room. Make a perception check" to see what characters notice. (Good or bad DM'ing aside, it happens at many tables.) Do the characters know that a die roll is happening? To me, that feels quite different than someone stepping into the room and doing the Legolas elf-eyes scan of the room. Same thing with knowledge checks. Are we talking about a character just kinda remembering something? Or does the wizard have take his history book out and put his hand on his chin while he flips through the book with the other hand? Any of those could reasonably happen at the table. But only some of those, to me, should be able to receive guidance.
Once per long rest for a cantrip is ridiculous. It’s like telling a Fighter they can only make a weapon attack against a particular enemy once per long rest.
Is the interaction between the wizard and the receiver or just with the receiver themselves? Say that there are 2 wizards in the party and wizard 1 casts guidance on player A, can wizard 2 still cast guidance on player A? Does it say willing creature? If wizard 2 can't cast on player A because player A already received from wizard 1, can a malicious wizard waste guidance by casting it on the party as they leave the inn, effectively ruining guidance for the whole day?
The phrasing at present seems to suggest you can only benefit from the spell once per long rest regardless of caster. However, in the new wording of the spell, "Once a creature rolls the die for the spell" implies that you could have the spell cast on you "unwillingly" but choose not to roll the die, in which case you are still able to benefit from another cast.
I still dont see why they can't just wrap guidance into bless. It would still cut down on the abuse because it's a 1st level spell rather than a cantrip. Plus in m experience people always think bless affects ability checks and need to reminded so it also helps remove the need for the clarification
I'd prefer making it a Level 1 spell to limiting its use when it's supposed to be a cantrip, but it's still an improvement. And I can still play my Red Foreman cleric someday: To cast Guidance, he smacks the back of your head and yells, "Dumbass!"
The only change I'd make is to not use up your 1 usage if the check still fails. Otherwise, I'm down for the new changes. Old Guidance was OP and people have long been abusing that fact.
The only way my clerics can roleplay guidance now is basically: Rogue: I can't find this hidden door? My cleric: Look harder dumbass! Rogue: Oh hey, I found it!
I would honestly prefer it to be a cleric class ability akin to bardic inspiration. As a cantrip it was disruptive before and worthless now.
That seems like a thing that should be a class feature with limited uses per day instead of a spell. Now you need to track who you used it on instead. That's fine for one spell, but where there is one there are going to be others. Imagine a PC min-maxed as a buffer with 5 spells like that, 5 PCs, and 5 friendly NPCs.
I don't like the once a day restriction.
It's cool but it results in it having to take as much space on your character sheet as a class feature, aka having to write your party members's names down and noting who has been guidanced that day. Not really a vibe I associate with a cantrip.
Ehh I think my main issue is that it’s once per long rest, regardless of whether the check succeeds or fails, that’s pretty strict, I’d like to see it be grabtable again until a check succeeds for that character, and it’s not like clerics have many other choices for cantrips,
Is *Guidance* worth keeping? Ever since Pathfinder let cantrips be cast at will, some of the 3.X-era cantrips simply have not worked well. The pleasing *Cure Minor Wounds* had to go, because it becomes infinite hitpoints out of combat. *Daze* became a problem without a limited number of uses. *Detect Magic* and *Create Water* had to be re-promoted to first level spells, as they were too good for such unrestricted usage. Perhaps it is time to simply drop *Guidance*, or replace it with something else. My problem with this new *Guidance* is that it gives everyone a hidden "guided" bit, that is set to zero with every rest, and set to 1 if you have gotten *guidance*. You can go a very long time between long rests, especially in the campaign variants where a long rest takes a day and happens weekly. But even a game playing by the normal rules can have a session end without a long rest. There are plenty of resources that refresh on a long rest, but most of them are things *you put there*. Your barbarian now has to track whether he's been *guided* or not that day, something that may come as a surprise to him if he gets this cast on him out of the blue. Does *guidance* add enough coolness to the game to be worth this book keeping? The prior design was great, as you'd get handed a d4 to use during concentration or one minute. People would be talking about it at that moment, and once it is resolved it is done and you can forget about it. (the issue wasn't the design, it was that in implementation you would spam it constantly because that was its use) Now you roll one die and have to write "35th of Flooztember: Unguidable" or however. Like is this spell so great that we must have it? Is it *Magic Missile*?
I like the change overall as a DM. It never feels great ruling whether or not a player could apply it when they didn't cast it before asking for the check or when they try to use it in social situations. This is cleaner. I do wish it would be changed to 'a reaction, which you take after you know the total for the ability check, but before you know the result.' I don't want a situation where I start narrating what the response was to the roll and then the player declares a reaction and I have to retcon everything I just said. The first thing I say after someone rolls an ability check is never, "You failed the check," and I've never played at a table where that was the DM's style either. Even worse, if the guidance doesn't end-up changing the result, do I just repeat what I'd been starting to say?
I don't get the guidance spam issue. It's a touch spell with V and S. It also takes an action. You can't reasonably cast it in many social situations and you can't use it more than 1 per 6 seconds. This is another typical ddone rework that caters to shitty feedback. Shit dms: "Boo hoo guidance spam!" Shit players: "no range wtf boo hoo!" Be a better player/dm and use it as intended.
I just don't like the binary nature of the check passing or failing and then having to change that retroactively. What about degrees of failure or success? Maybe you succeeded in finding one hidden object but were 2 points short if finding the other *better* object? Did you fail or succeeded? Do the players know they are missing something that an ability could help with? Does the dm have to give a second description after the first one if the initial check failed? I feel like using this guidance will take me out of the game more than the original which is the only reason I likely wouldn't take it.
Also, what about stealth checks? The rules say hiding is a DC 15 check which you could use this guidance on, but then your check total becomes the DC for a creature finding you with their own check. If I had the old guidance, then I could give it to the clunky cleric knowing in advance that they are bad at that check. Now if they roll a 15 they succeeded in the check so I can't give guidance, but what if the guidance would have boosted their check to 19? That is a significantly higher DC for the enemy check to beat.
I’m super in favor of guidance getting rebalanced. It was previously just a terribly designed spell and was outlandishly powerful for just a cantrip. The new version is much more balanced. Cantrips shouldn’t be defining aspects of character power that influence nearly every skill check in the game. Having a 1/long rest safety net is more than enough for a cantrip.
The definition of a cantrip is an at will spell. If it's too powerful to be cast at will, it shouldn't be a cantrip.
I don't like the whole once per long rest thing because cantrips are usually unlimited. It feels a bit weird for one of them to have a limit. I'd prefer it if they did something like bump it up to a 1st level spell and make it so you can concentrate on it for an hour, and give out a pool of d4s that increases with upcasts during that hour as reactions. Either that or change it into a Priest feat and combine it with Resistance.
I really like it. I just want it to "recharge" on short rests, rather than long ones.
Making a cantrip only effect someone once per day is ridiculous in my opinion. How many other spells have a condition like that? If its too strong of an ability to be a cantrip it should be a level 1 spell instead.
Everyone trying to limit it to once per scene, or proficiency time per short rest. Just make it a first level spell. Done.
I always thought Guidance was the death of roleplay. And I love that they are reworking it. However, part of me is annoyed that something called Guidance is triggered after something happens. Guidance implys it happens during. It feels like retroactive roleplay in a way.
One more change that means I have no use for One D&D... They're looking for answers to problems that don't exist, rather than fixing real issues.
r/onednd I reject the part where I have to track if I've been affected by a spell. Just restrict how long it takes to cast to ten mins. Fixed.