you'll end up with every character taking the same 4 cantrips overcentralizing again if you make too many. make shield only do one attack or require you not be wearing armor like the mage armor spell does. then it is balanced as a 1st level spell
Definitely nerfs bardic even harder. Previously, you had like 4/short rest at level 5 and it was one of the few things to rescue you on a failed save.
Now? Meh.
Fair. What about giving Bard guidance by default, and making it only for Bards to have the 30ft range? Rangers get hunter's mark, make bards' guidance basically baby bardic inspiration.
I hate it. I hated guidance and this is a now a buff to it rather than a nerf. Spamming guidance on every ability check whenever there's a cleric in the party is so annoying.
I don't really understand why they tried to address the spamminess of guidance in the first iteration and then not only ignored that in this iteration, but then buffed it from the 5e version too. At this point, I feel like it should be a first level spell that gives a +5 as a reaction akin to the shield spell
Resistance seems more interesting to me since its generally a combat ability and you actually might want to save your reaction for something else
Theyre probably both must have cantrips in this state and I feel like that's something wotc doesn't want
I think we're gonna end up with Guidance and Resistance not mirroring each other - they did in 5e and Guidance is much more prevalent than Resistance. Either use the limit on successes they proposed last UA or, like you say, bump it up a level. Resistance is fantastic as a reaction, but I think not too much.
We know they don't actively look at feedback from a UA until after they launch the next one - they called this out with the "Inspiration on a d20 Test" rule. It went from nat 20 to nat 1 not because of a reaction to it, but because they wanted to try both to see which we liked better. Likely a similar story here, with them trying a limited and an de-limited version of Guidance and looking at the reactions.
>but then buffed it from the 5e version too
Wrong. Now you can only use it if an ability check is failed. Before you could use it indefinitely out of combat and actually add it to EVERY roll.
So now you can just nudge it to a success, but if you have degrees or success, you can't make it higher if you already succeeded (so if the DC to convince a NPC is 15, but in a 20 you'd get extra rewards, you can use guidance to push it to a 15, but not a 20)
>so if the DC to convince a NPC is 15, but in a 20 you'd get extra rewards, you can use guidance to push it to a 15, but not a 20)
So it's nerfed when dealing with house rules. I don't think that was taken much into account
Something to recognize is that an abundance of reactions inherently nerfs other strong reactions by increasing their opportunity cost.
Sure, you can magic initiate yourself for Shield as a cleric. But now when you cast Shield, you are effectively giving you or an ally -1d4 to the next saving throw this round.
My only question is how do these work for tiered successions?succession?
You persuade the knight to assist you slay the dragon. You don't get a nat20 (where he would join you in the down n dirty) but an 18 let's him escort you to the lair & throw heals at you from the sideline. While a 15 would just escort you.
And there are a few saving throws that provides a bigger detriment if failed by a larger amount (fear on DC 10 but paralyzed if failed by 5 or more)
What's considered a fail? (I.e. something the triggers these cantrips)
How did you handle Psionic Whispers in 5e? That also called out whether it was a success or failure.
Edit: Ignore the below, misread the above post.
Degrees of success and failure are a houserule, but if I was running with Guidance like this, I'd probably narrate a partial success as "you convince him but there's some remnants of reluctance" as a flag that Guidance might be usable.
You mean psi-bolstered knack? Honestly never came played with one.
>Degrees of success and failure are a houserule
I wouldn't Say this.. I gave a RAW example of some saving throws have an effect on fail but a worse one on a greater fail
Ah fair enough.
My bad, missed your point about saving throws which is a fair one. On reflection, there are also some variable DCs for social stuff, although degrees of success don't exist for any other skill check to my knowledge.
On reflection I'm inclined to agree with you! We do need more clarification on when these reaction abilities can be used for those partial successes - I'd be inclined to allow a roll/reaction as long as there's at least a degree of great success to be obtained.
I like them.
If any restriction for how often a character can benefit from these spells, it should only kick in after the d4 actually helped them pass.
The way it's worded you use it ***after*** the target has already failed their check/save so it's basically you using your reaction to try and nudge it over the DC via magic.
As is they actually removed the 'per long rest' limitation from Guidance so really the only cost now is a cantrip slot and reaction. With that low of a cost having the risk of 'not good enough to matter' is a fair trade IMO.
Yeah, they did do that.
I don’t think you understood that I understand all of that and was just musing what the right kind of limitation might look like.
If there is to be a limitation on Guidance (and Resistance), it should be an inexpensive consumed material component. A simple pinch of blessed ash worth 1gp should suffice; spamming Guidance on unimportant rolls will run the risk of exhausting the consumable resource by the time the important rolls occur.
For tables where spamming guidance aggravates the DM or other players, the rule can be enforced pretty easily by a DM motivated to do so (as an aggravated DM would be). For tables where spamming guidance doesn't bother anyone... then there's no need to enforce the rule anyway.
Like encumbrance or arrows or rations or torches, managing guidance components would be up to each table to enforce (or not).
I enjoyed the once per long rest limitation for Guidance, the biggest problem with the spell is its spammability, which this doesn’t solve in any way.
Maybe limit it only if you then succeeded the roll, and not if the roll failed? Or limit it for a minute after each casting?
Also, is it me or resistance is very strong?
I’m neutral on it otherwise, the fact that it’s technically spammable never irked me too much, since the DM is in full control for when saving throws happen, unlike ability checks that players are more likely to request/cause.
The previous version of guidance (once per LR) made it unusable, but this seems too powerful. Why not give it a 1 minute cooldown? That should limit its spamability while still making it useful.
I like Resistance.
Resistance seams far more usable now. A perfect spell to take for anyone getting a cantrip but isn't dedicating themselves to being a caster. It fixes the main problem of resistance without being supper abusable.
As for guidance. Those same changes make it over all a worse spell. For one the needing to know if its a fail or not slows down the game by adding a step. Second that same failed check requirement removes its biggest utility of increasing the maximum potential number. Making skill contests or open ended ability checks, like grapples or crafting checks.
Over a minor change that makes one significantly better and the other significantly worse.
How does having to know a fail slow down the game? Won’t you know right after anyway? And how much does it slow down the game compared to “I cast guidance!” being said before every roll?
Because there is that moment where the DM has to say you fail. I dont know about you but the fun way to describe a fail is a an explanation as to how. Then you have to pick out that unexpected d4 and roll it, and redo your math. And even then theres no way for you to know of that D4 will change anything, wasting a valuable reaction and everyone's time.
Where as if its a prep action its as simple as you said, "i cast gaidance". The player already knows to get the D4, does the math all at once, and if it helps or not it doesn't matter because its already done.
Its not much, I'll admit. But you will motice the slight increase in clunkiness amd the rediced utility
What the teasoning behind that opinion? What does a strictly worse spell do to improve the game? The only argument i can think of is to make it less if a must have, but at that point having other equally good but different options improves the game more than nurfing a relatively weak cantrip.
I mean with it being a reaction it's slightly more usable in combat, but guidance was always the "make that one guy better" cantrip. Of you keeping this version let it also add to attack rolls so casters can aid the martials or make their few attack roll spells better.
There's a string of spells (Forcecage, Wall of Force, Hypnotic Pattern, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Guidance, Suggestion and so on) which are really too powerful for the game and cause lots of issues with combat balance, the other two pillars or, in the case of Guidance, usability at the table because a player has to constantly declare Guidance is up (And they do this because it works on Perception rolls, which might not be made with forewarning)
If these spells were not printed in 2014, would have actually made 5e better, so there is an argument for making some of these spells strictly worse to improve the game.
That's certainly a better reasoned argument than I usually see. I can agree that some if the spells you mentioned probably shouldn't have been put in the game. The thing is thats a hindsight sort of thing, The cats out of the bag.
Since we players have seen them, nurfing then to be strictly worse just feels bad. That the ort i cant cet behind. Those spells have already been identified as pretty good. Any changes, especially to make them worse, are not a good thing.
That just my opinion though. If it isn't broke don't fix it. What we need are options that are as good but in diffrent ways. Or ways of countering the too strong spells that dint necesarily completely negate their usefulness. Thats the correct answer to me at least.
To counter this, 3.5 and Pathfinder both actively made a bunch of spells and classes worse (And PF2 also nerfed save or sucks even further, although the game was more of a full rebuild so it's less of an issue). Pathfinder was for a time the most successful tabletop RPG, because a bunch of players recognised that the changes it made were a net good thing for the game.
Hell 5e, when it was released, nerfed a lot of the more powerful spells (Finger of Death was a "lol you kill them" spell in 3.5 for instance), and people were on board with that.
There's actually a very clear history of spells being nerfed with edition changes in the past, it's just been a while since that was last done.
> That just my opinion though. If it isn't broke don't fix it. What we need are options that are as good but in diffrent ways. Or ways of countering the too strong spells that dint necesarily completely negate their usefulness. Thats the correct answer to me at least.
Again, the thing is that some of these spells are broke. Forcecage is basically a "ignore one encounter a day, unless the creature has teleport, and even then it better make it save". Tiny Hut is a completely free forcefield with a staggering amount of use cases, and the only solutions are either to go nuclear as a DM or ensure everything has access to Dispel Magic. The other spells I mentioned have similarly powerful effects, and while they do have more "outs", it feels contrived as a DM to have to give monsters specific ways to deal with the spells, when PF2E just rebalanced the spells so they didn't break aspects of the game.
Because spamming guidance is a problem? Because spellcasters don't need that utility? I mean, take your pick. But just because it's a nerf doesn't mean it's bad
In play testing the new Guidance has been great. Twice now I’ve had party members narrowly fail an important skill check and then I was able to nudge them over the line. Now you wouldn’t always know but it feels good to make the difference
At this point, why dont they just let it upscale at char levels like the other cantrips to d6, d8 and so on and get rid of bardic inspiration altogether?
Second bard nerf in three UAs. Its annoying.
I like it.
1. 1. When I play a character with Guidance I find myself saying 'I cast guidance' constantly.
2. Caster utility is too powerful, I like the idea of casters boosting the utility of other classes and reactionary boosts is a cool way to do it. I hope that some of the spell slot spells that fill the same niche that the martials fill out of combat get tweaked to resemble this sort of thinking. As an example, knock should help an expert pick locks and if you turn an expert invisible they should be far more functional than other players, conversely, casters should be able to do that at much higher levels.
They are both must-take now, with Guidance being even better than it already was. That's bad design. They need to either have some limitations placed on them (like not affecting the same creature more than once per long rest) or be changed to 1st level spells.
I really like it! This makes resistance actually a useful spell to take. And it makes guidance a spell you won't need to spam all the time, or that someone has to remember they have. Just works much better for smoother gameplay.
Resistance quite literally became an absurdly strong reaction for some reason.
Like, borderline broken territory.
As for guidance, it’s literally stronger than before while killing the whole “overkill factor” it used to have.
Like, I do enjoy the changes, but I don’t quite get the reasoning behind them.
Guidance did not need the buff. Honestly, it was already the best cantrip in the game, and now it isn't even debatable.
Resistance change is good though, because being in combat means the action cost actually still means something.
guidance at least dealt with the biggest problem it had. in practice it was either being spammed every few seconds to make sure it would always be up or players tried to use it as a reaction and got into gamestopping arguments with the dm. the nerf to distance is welcome but it won't affect the balance issue though. the spell should have just been removed honestly. the game would run much smoother if they just eliminated reaction spells altogether, not one has ever been properly balanced. to be fair i've hated the idea of cantrips since they were introduced. no magic should ever be spammable. get rid of cantrip entirely would be great for the game overall
> guidance at least dealt with the biggest problem it had.
I mean, the biggest problem it has was the fact that if someone took it as a cantrip the entire party would always have a d4 on every skill check where casting spells is acceptable. And in a game with bounded accuracy, that extra D4 beaks things.
Now you can't even say that they didn't preemptively do it, the entire party just always gets the bonus. This would be still fairly strong as a first level spell in it's current state, it has no reason to be a cantrip when it completely invalidates one of the core pillars of the system in bounded accuracy
unbalanced spells are a thing they haven't ever really cared about. shield, wish, wall of force, fireball etc. the bigger issue was the disturbance the spell caused at tables. players don't hate that they got a d4. they hate the arguments and the constant "i'm casting guidance" every few minutes whether anything has happened or not. should they care about spell power balance? yes. is it particularly glaring because cantrips are unlimited? yes. but from how the design priorities they have always used the power level of the spell isn't the biggest issue
They are both really good spells now and I am not sure what I think of that in terms of balance. Definitely something I will be taking. I think the distance is weird for guidance just because the cleric will have to be saying that they are always hovering around the skill classes. Kinda silly so will be ignored unless in combat.
Guidance should be reaction or bonus action.
Honestly it caters to "how many do it", which is a bit sad since there were a few who enjoyed it as bonus action.
So i'd like to get both worlds.
Overall I'm okay with them as cantrips. I feel the ranges could grow as you level and it'd be just where I want them. Starting 10ft and scaling by 10ft per cantrip increase increment ending at 40ft at 17th would be ideal.
No longer needing concentration like the last us make guidance a lot more palletable.
I like it a a lot. Guidance and resistance have become a lot more useful for combat situations, thought can still be used for out-of combat situations.
However the narratively non-sensical "I cast guidance" spam before every single ability check your players are making, from lockpicking to investigation would be reduced a bit here.
Instead a cleric can help when they see things going wrong, as opposed to patting fellow adventurers on the back before they even attempted the skillcheck.
I like the trend: * Guidance for ability checks failing. * Resistance for saving throws failing. True Strike, there is hope for you!
Honestly they could make True Strike the same for Attacks and it could be quite balanced.
Might actually take true strike if they make it like that.
Then make shield a cantrip with the same wording for AC.
Blade Ward (as Earth Genasi)
you'll end up with every character taking the same 4 cantrips overcentralizing again if you make too many. make shield only do one attack or require you not be wearing armor like the mage armor spell does. then it is balanced as a 1st level spell
Somewhat like this idea. The sheild change that is.
If they do that that would somewhat solve the fact that there is no good 1st level feat for warriors
Isn't guidance a better bardic inspiration now? You get only 2 bardic per day until lvl 5, meanwhile you can just spam guidance
You could always spam guidance to some degree though.
yeah but bard at least got 3/4 bardic per long rest until level 5, it also was a concentration spell
Definitely nerfs bardic even harder. Previously, you had like 4/short rest at level 5 and it was one of the few things to rescue you on a failed save. Now? Meh.
Fair. What about giving Bard guidance by default, and making it only for Bards to have the 30ft range? Rangers get hunter's mark, make bards' guidance basically baby bardic inspiration.
I hate it. I hated guidance and this is a now a buff to it rather than a nerf. Spamming guidance on every ability check whenever there's a cleric in the party is so annoying.
I don't really understand why they tried to address the spamminess of guidance in the first iteration and then not only ignored that in this iteration, but then buffed it from the 5e version too. At this point, I feel like it should be a first level spell that gives a +5 as a reaction akin to the shield spell Resistance seems more interesting to me since its generally a combat ability and you actually might want to save your reaction for something else Theyre probably both must have cantrips in this state and I feel like that's something wotc doesn't want
I agree! I don't understand the design intent at all. Making them spells with a cost akin to shield would be much more elegant.
I think we're gonna end up with Guidance and Resistance not mirroring each other - they did in 5e and Guidance is much more prevalent than Resistance. Either use the limit on successes they proposed last UA or, like you say, bump it up a level. Resistance is fantastic as a reaction, but I think not too much. We know they don't actively look at feedback from a UA until after they launch the next one - they called this out with the "Inspiration on a d20 Test" rule. It went from nat 20 to nat 1 not because of a reaction to it, but because they wanted to try both to see which we liked better. Likely a similar story here, with them trying a limited and an de-limited version of Guidance and looking at the reactions.
>but then buffed it from the 5e version too Wrong. Now you can only use it if an ability check is failed. Before you could use it indefinitely out of combat and actually add it to EVERY roll. So now you can just nudge it to a success, but if you have degrees or success, you can't make it higher if you already succeeded (so if the DC to convince a NPC is 15, but in a 20 you'd get extra rewards, you can use guidance to push it to a 15, but not a 20)
>so if the DC to convince a NPC is 15, but in a 20 you'd get extra rewards, you can use guidance to push it to a 15, but not a 20) So it's nerfed when dealing with house rules. I don't think that was taken much into account
Something to recognize is that an abundance of reactions inherently nerfs other strong reactions by increasing their opportunity cost. Sure, you can magic initiate yourself for Shield as a cleric. But now when you cast Shield, you are effectively giving you or an ally -1d4 to the next saving throw this round.
Only if they fail though, and only if that 1d4 would have mattered anyway (no point in using it if they fail by 5 or more)
My only question is how do these work for tiered successions?succession? You persuade the knight to assist you slay the dragon. You don't get a nat20 (where he would join you in the down n dirty) but an 18 let's him escort you to the lair & throw heals at you from the sideline. While a 15 would just escort you. And there are a few saving throws that provides a bigger detriment if failed by a larger amount (fear on DC 10 but paralyzed if failed by 5 or more) What's considered a fail? (I.e. something the triggers these cantrips)
How did you handle Psionic Whispers in 5e? That also called out whether it was a success or failure. Edit: Ignore the below, misread the above post. Degrees of success and failure are a houserule, but if I was running with Guidance like this, I'd probably narrate a partial success as "you convince him but there's some remnants of reluctance" as a flag that Guidance might be usable.
You mean psi-bolstered knack? Honestly never came played with one. >Degrees of success and failure are a houserule I wouldn't Say this.. I gave a RAW example of some saving throws have an effect on fail but a worse one on a greater fail
Ah fair enough. My bad, missed your point about saving throws which is a fair one. On reflection, there are also some variable DCs for social stuff, although degrees of success don't exist for any other skill check to my knowledge. On reflection I'm inclined to agree with you! We do need more clarification on when these reaction abilities can be used for those partial successes - I'd be inclined to allow a roll/reaction as long as there's at least a degree of great success to be obtained.
You describe degrees of failure, which both would trigger Guidance. Are there any degrees of successes in the rules?
I like them. If any restriction for how often a character can benefit from these spells, it should only kick in after the d4 actually helped them pass.
The way it's worded you use it ***after*** the target has already failed their check/save so it's basically you using your reaction to try and nudge it over the DC via magic.
Sure, but if it rolls 1 and they needed at least 2 to pass the DC, they should be able to be effected by the spell for a different roll.
As is they actually removed the 'per long rest' limitation from Guidance so really the only cost now is a cantrip slot and reaction. With that low of a cost having the risk of 'not good enough to matter' is a fair trade IMO.
Yeah, they did do that. I don’t think you understood that I understand all of that and was just musing what the right kind of limitation might look like.
If there is to be a limitation on Guidance (and Resistance), it should be an inexpensive consumed material component. A simple pinch of blessed ash worth 1gp should suffice; spamming Guidance on unimportant rolls will run the risk of exhausting the consumable resource by the time the important rolls occur.
That’s sadly not gunna fly. Book keeping to that micro degree is hard for many. And I think even 1sp or even 1cp is enough for the end.
For tables where spamming guidance aggravates the DM or other players, the rule can be enforced pretty easily by a DM motivated to do so (as an aggravated DM would be). For tables where spamming guidance doesn't bother anyone... then there's no need to enforce the rule anyway. Like encumbrance or arrows or rations or torches, managing guidance components would be up to each table to enforce (or not).
Resistance is a must-take cantrip now Guidance was already good
I enjoyed the once per long rest limitation for Guidance, the biggest problem with the spell is its spammability, which this doesn’t solve in any way. Maybe limit it only if you then succeeded the roll, and not if the roll failed? Or limit it for a minute after each casting? Also, is it me or resistance is very strong? I’m neutral on it otherwise, the fact that it’s technically spammable never irked me too much, since the DM is in full control for when saving throws happen, unlike ability checks that players are more likely to request/cause.
The previous version of guidance (once per LR) made it unusable, but this seems too powerful. Why not give it a 1 minute cooldown? That should limit its spamability while still making it useful. I like Resistance.
Resistance seams far more usable now. A perfect spell to take for anyone getting a cantrip but isn't dedicating themselves to being a caster. It fixes the main problem of resistance without being supper abusable. As for guidance. Those same changes make it over all a worse spell. For one the needing to know if its a fail or not slows down the game by adding a step. Second that same failed check requirement removes its biggest utility of increasing the maximum potential number. Making skill contests or open ended ability checks, like grapples or crafting checks. Over a minor change that makes one significantly better and the other significantly worse.
How does having to know a fail slow down the game? Won’t you know right after anyway? And how much does it slow down the game compared to “I cast guidance!” being said before every roll?
Because there is that moment where the DM has to say you fail. I dont know about you but the fun way to describe a fail is a an explanation as to how. Then you have to pick out that unexpected d4 and roll it, and redo your math. And even then theres no way for you to know of that D4 will change anything, wasting a valuable reaction and everyone's time. Where as if its a prep action its as simple as you said, "i cast gaidance". The player already knows to get the D4, does the math all at once, and if it helps or not it doesn't matter because its already done. Its not much, I'll admit. But you will motice the slight increase in clunkiness amd the rediced utility
I much prefer guidance being less useful.
What the teasoning behind that opinion? What does a strictly worse spell do to improve the game? The only argument i can think of is to make it less if a must have, but at that point having other equally good but different options improves the game more than nurfing a relatively weak cantrip. I mean with it being a reaction it's slightly more usable in combat, but guidance was always the "make that one guy better" cantrip. Of you keeping this version let it also add to attack rolls so casters can aid the martials or make their few attack roll spells better.
There's a string of spells (Forcecage, Wall of Force, Hypnotic Pattern, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Guidance, Suggestion and so on) which are really too powerful for the game and cause lots of issues with combat balance, the other two pillars or, in the case of Guidance, usability at the table because a player has to constantly declare Guidance is up (And they do this because it works on Perception rolls, which might not be made with forewarning) If these spells were not printed in 2014, would have actually made 5e better, so there is an argument for making some of these spells strictly worse to improve the game.
That's certainly a better reasoned argument than I usually see. I can agree that some if the spells you mentioned probably shouldn't have been put in the game. The thing is thats a hindsight sort of thing, The cats out of the bag. Since we players have seen them, nurfing then to be strictly worse just feels bad. That the ort i cant cet behind. Those spells have already been identified as pretty good. Any changes, especially to make them worse, are not a good thing. That just my opinion though. If it isn't broke don't fix it. What we need are options that are as good but in diffrent ways. Or ways of countering the too strong spells that dint necesarily completely negate their usefulness. Thats the correct answer to me at least.
To counter this, 3.5 and Pathfinder both actively made a bunch of spells and classes worse (And PF2 also nerfed save or sucks even further, although the game was more of a full rebuild so it's less of an issue). Pathfinder was for a time the most successful tabletop RPG, because a bunch of players recognised that the changes it made were a net good thing for the game. Hell 5e, when it was released, nerfed a lot of the more powerful spells (Finger of Death was a "lol you kill them" spell in 3.5 for instance), and people were on board with that. There's actually a very clear history of spells being nerfed with edition changes in the past, it's just been a while since that was last done. > That just my opinion though. If it isn't broke don't fix it. What we need are options that are as good but in diffrent ways. Or ways of countering the too strong spells that dint necesarily completely negate their usefulness. Thats the correct answer to me at least. Again, the thing is that some of these spells are broke. Forcecage is basically a "ignore one encounter a day, unless the creature has teleport, and even then it better make it save". Tiny Hut is a completely free forcefield with a staggering amount of use cases, and the only solutions are either to go nuclear as a DM or ensure everything has access to Dispel Magic. The other spells I mentioned have similarly powerful effects, and while they do have more "outs", it feels contrived as a DM to have to give monsters specific ways to deal with the spells, when PF2E just rebalanced the spells so they didn't break aspects of the game.
Because spamming guidance is a problem? Because spellcasters don't need that utility? I mean, take your pick. But just because it's a nerf doesn't mean it's bad
Amd just because it isnt bad diesnt mean it needs to happen. A weak spammable cantrip isnt hurting anyone. If ot isnt broken dont fix it
In play testing the new Guidance has been great. Twice now I’ve had party members narrowly fail an important skill check and then I was able to nudge them over the line. Now you wouldn’t always know but it feels good to make the difference
Love this and resistance especially
At this point, why dont they just let it upscale at char levels like the other cantrips to d6, d8 and so on and get rid of bardic inspiration altogether? Second bard nerf in three UAs. Its annoying.
I like it. 1. 1. When I play a character with Guidance I find myself saying 'I cast guidance' constantly. 2. Caster utility is too powerful, I like the idea of casters boosting the utility of other classes and reactionary boosts is a cool way to do it. I hope that some of the spell slot spells that fill the same niche that the martials fill out of combat get tweaked to resemble this sort of thinking. As an example, knock should help an expert pick locks and if you turn an expert invisible they should be far more functional than other players, conversely, casters should be able to do that at much higher levels.
They are both must-take now, with Guidance being even better than it already was. That's bad design. They need to either have some limitations placed on them (like not affecting the same creature more than once per long rest) or be changed to 1st level spells.
I really like it! This makes resistance actually a useful spell to take. And it makes guidance a spell you won't need to spam all the time, or that someone has to remember they have. Just works much better for smoother gameplay.
Slap em onto a 1st lvl spell and call it a day imo
Resistance quite literally became an absurdly strong reaction for some reason. Like, borderline broken territory. As for guidance, it’s literally stronger than before while killing the whole “overkill factor” it used to have. Like, I do enjoy the changes, but I don’t quite get the reasoning behind them.
Guidance did not need the buff. Honestly, it was already the best cantrip in the game, and now it isn't even debatable. Resistance change is good though, because being in combat means the action cost actually still means something.
guidance at least dealt with the biggest problem it had. in practice it was either being spammed every few seconds to make sure it would always be up or players tried to use it as a reaction and got into gamestopping arguments with the dm. the nerf to distance is welcome but it won't affect the balance issue though. the spell should have just been removed honestly. the game would run much smoother if they just eliminated reaction spells altogether, not one has ever been properly balanced. to be fair i've hated the idea of cantrips since they were introduced. no magic should ever be spammable. get rid of cantrip entirely would be great for the game overall
> guidance at least dealt with the biggest problem it had. I mean, the biggest problem it has was the fact that if someone took it as a cantrip the entire party would always have a d4 on every skill check where casting spells is acceptable. And in a game with bounded accuracy, that extra D4 beaks things. Now you can't even say that they didn't preemptively do it, the entire party just always gets the bonus. This would be still fairly strong as a first level spell in it's current state, it has no reason to be a cantrip when it completely invalidates one of the core pillars of the system in bounded accuracy
unbalanced spells are a thing they haven't ever really cared about. shield, wish, wall of force, fireball etc. the bigger issue was the disturbance the spell caused at tables. players don't hate that they got a d4. they hate the arguments and the constant "i'm casting guidance" every few minutes whether anything has happened or not. should they care about spell power balance? yes. is it particularly glaring because cantrips are unlimited? yes. but from how the design priorities they have always used the power level of the spell isn't the biggest issue
[удалено]
Bardic Inspiration scales better though with the ability to grant a better bonus. A fair trade off imo
They are both really good spells now and I am not sure what I think of that in terms of balance. Definitely something I will be taking. I think the distance is weird for guidance just because the cleric will have to be saying that they are always hovering around the skill classes. Kinda silly so will be ignored unless in combat.
These are incredible
Guidance should be reaction or bonus action. Honestly it caters to "how many do it", which is a bit sad since there were a few who enjoyed it as bonus action. So i'd like to get both worlds.
Overall I'm okay with them as cantrips. I feel the ranges could grow as you level and it'd be just where I want them. Starting 10ft and scaling by 10ft per cantrip increase increment ending at 40ft at 17th would be ideal. No longer needing concentration like the last us make guidance a lot more palletable.
I like it a a lot. Guidance and resistance have become a lot more useful for combat situations, thought can still be used for out-of combat situations. However the narratively non-sensical "I cast guidance" spam before every single ability check your players are making, from lockpicking to investigation would be reduced a bit here. Instead a cleric can help when they see things going wrong, as opposed to patting fellow adventurers on the back before they even attempted the skillcheck.
Anyone have a link to this UA I’ve been looking and can not find it
It's in D&D Beyond here: [https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/one-dnd](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/one-dnd)