Ruin Explorer
Legend
I don't think anyone here is unaware of either of these two things. Nor is the bolded bit true.
D&D 5E [Guidance] What, +1d4 to every check ever?
I don't think anyone here is unaware of either of these two things. Nor is the bolded bit true.
I too argued against Guidance in play test feedback, but I currently find myself playing a cleric in a php game. And yes, I cast or offer to cast Guidance (though the other players do not always choose to take advantage of it).
I'll admit I still don't like the spell, but it seems to be a specific part of the experience of being a cleric that as been designed, and it is necessary to look at the larger context of cantrips and not the single spell:
1. Since the play test, the number of cantrips available to a cleric has increased significantly. Also since the play test, the selection of cantrips has not increased to the same degree, so that by high levels many clerics will have most cantrips. It follows that Guidance is going to be in the arsenal of most clerics sooner or later. It requires a conscious effort to avoid this. There just aren't enough Cleric cantrips for this not to be the case.
2. In-combat alternatives have not been part of the catnip selection: there is one attack spell (sacred flame) but nothing which requires a roll to-hit. Given the incredibly wide range of wizard attack cantrips, this too is a conscious choice: the laser-cleric is being aggressively suppressed (not eliminated, with feats or High Elves, but suppressed).
3. Both of these serve to sculpt a specific play experience for clerics: they can offer a small bonus to most skill checks out-of-combat; in combat their default spells are reactive (and, IMO less fun, though it does effectively bypass high-AC opponents), and not a "proper" attack. This sort of effectiveness is similar to the "turn undead feature" (again shared by all clerics, despite some play test options where it was not inevitable): clerics are very helpful in some circumstances, but consciously limited in others.
From this it follows, I believe, that if DMs have a problem with guidance, the fix is simple: ban the spell, but let players have free choice of another class's cantrips for one spell instead. Just removing the spell without increasing the available cantrips is even more constraining on the cleric, however.
So much for mechanics; what about role-play? I have no problems with constraints on RP emerging from Guidance, and (possibly) something like that is expected. I'd love it if to receive the benefit of Guidance the recipient had to acknowledge the source ("thanks be to Pelor") or something -- that would help both add to the depth of the world (making the characters recognize that they are receiving divine aid) and (I expect) also constrain the spell's use, because (I expect) some players simply would not want to acknowledge the in-world gods in this way. (I once tried to play a cleric this way with healing spells; it was not very popular, and other players would rather not be healed than acknowledge the help of the god in question.)
That's the best I can do, though, with a spell I don't particularly like.
I'll admit I still don't like the spell, but it seems to be a specific part of the experience of being a cleric that as been designed, and it is necessary to look at the larger context of cantrips and not the single spell:
1. Since the play test, the number of cantrips available to a cleric has increased significantly. Also since the play test, the selection of cantrips has not increased to the same degree, so that by high levels many clerics will have most cantrips. It follows that Guidance is going to be in the arsenal of most clerics sooner or later. It requires a conscious effort to avoid this. There just aren't enough Cleric cantrips for this not to be the case.
2. In-combat alternatives have not been part of the catnip selection: there is one attack spell (sacred flame) but nothing which requires a roll to-hit. Given the incredibly wide range of wizard attack cantrips, this too is a conscious choice: the laser-cleric is being aggressively suppressed (not eliminated, with feats or High Elves, but suppressed).
3. Both of these serve to sculpt a specific play experience for clerics: they can offer a small bonus to most skill checks out-of-combat; in combat their default spells are reactive (and, IMO less fun, though it does effectively bypass high-AC opponents), and not a "proper" attack. This sort of effectiveness is similar to the "turn undead feature" (again shared by all clerics, despite some play test options where it was not inevitable): clerics are very helpful in some circumstances, but consciously limited in others.
From this it follows, I believe, that if DMs have a problem with guidance, the fix is simple: ban the spell, but let players have free choice of another class's cantrips for one spell instead. Just removing the spell without increasing the available cantrips is even more constraining on the cleric, however.
So much for mechanics; what about role-play? I have no problems with constraints on RP emerging from Guidance, and (possibly) something like that is expected. I'd love it if to receive the benefit of Guidance the recipient had to acknowledge the source ("thanks be to Pelor") or something -- that would help both add to the depth of the world (making the characters recognize that they are receiving divine aid) and (I expect) also constrain the spell's use, because (I expect) some players simply would not want to acknowledge the in-world gods in this way. (I once tried to play a cleric this way with healing spells; it was not very popular, and other players would rather not be healed than acknowledge the help of the god in question.)
That's the best I can do, though, with a spell I don't particularly like.
jodyjohnson
Adventurer
My book has a tiny little disclaimer at the bottom:
Overuse of this cantrip will cause all skill DCs to inexplicably increase by +5.*
Because that the way the game rolls. Once a bonus becomes a given, the system compensates and not always proportionally. See the huge bonus of letting stats grow beyond 18/19 when 3.x released. And over time the system 'forces' you to max because it seeks to maintain the challenge.
Combat also sees this happen in the player vs. DM arms race.
So the question to the Guidance player is "Do you want to be forced to cast this every single time to allow success, or do you want to be judicious and only cast it when it is thematically needed?"
*Not really, but it is a practical outcome of the desire for challenge in the game.
Overuse of this cantrip will cause all skill DCs to inexplicably increase by +5.*
Because that the way the game rolls. Once a bonus becomes a given, the system compensates and not always proportionally. See the huge bonus of letting stats grow beyond 18/19 when 3.x released. And over time the system 'forces' you to max because it seeks to maintain the challenge.
Combat also sees this happen in the player vs. DM arms race.
So the question to the Guidance player is "Do you want to be forced to cast this every single time to allow success, or do you want to be judicious and only cast it when it is thematically needed?"
*Not really, but it is a practical outcome of the desire for challenge in the game.
This is just being punitive, though, isn't it? The player has very little choice available, and you are punishing her for making do with what she's been given.
jodyjohnson
Adventurer
The player has a choice each and every time it is cast.
If the player attitude is going to follow a logic where some of the time this is awesome, therefore I should do it all the time -- don't be surprised if the ability ceases to be awesome.
Power-gaming is the same way. If something in the game gets trivialized, the game (DM) tends to move to untrivialize it.
See high stat characters where suddenly everything has max hit points (recent PF game I was in with power-gamed characters).Or suddenly CR+4 is the new norm instead of CR+1.
I like Guidance as written, but it will reshape the way challenges are presented if it becomes assumed.
If the player attitude is going to follow a logic where some of the time this is awesome, therefore I should do it all the time -- don't be surprised if the ability ceases to be awesome.
Power-gaming is the same way. If something in the game gets trivialized, the game (DM) tends to move to untrivialize it.
See high stat characters where suddenly everything has max hit points (recent PF game I was in with power-gamed characters).Or suddenly CR+4 is the new norm instead of CR+1.
I like Guidance as written, but it will reshape the way challenges are presented if it becomes assumed.
The player is playing the game that the designers intended (cf. my previous post).
So, "yes it is being punitive: a player attempting to play as the game intends will be penalized to a greater degree than the possible benefit of the ability."
I suspect that this is the first time "Power-gaming" has been applied to a +1d4 bonus.
I think we will simply have to disagree.
I don't like how it is written, but given that it's the way clerics are expected to be played, it seems petty to me to punish your players. I would suggest finding an alternative that doesn't lead to petty vindictiveness.
Last edited:
I don't think that its a given that that is the way clerics are supposed to be played.
The cleric in our group saves it for tasks that he thinks his deity would provide guidance for.
And that's what the "player" thinks the spell is designed for, so its all good.
---
I understand that optimally there is nothing mechanically stopping the cleric from using it on every task, ergo some folks believe he should use it on every task.
But that goes back to the viewpoints about playing versus optimization, and neither side is ever totally right on that, as it varies from person to person to group to group.
Sacrosanct
Legend
This whole discussion reminds me of a tweet Mearls said a couple weeks ago. (paraphrasing) "5e is not going to have rules preventing people from playing boring if they want to play boring." And that's what this conversation seems to me.
Want to cast a spell every minute? Knock yourself out. But that's tedious and boring. And since it's concentration, you can't cast any other spell that requires concentration without losing it.
Want to cast a spell every minute? Knock yourself out. But that's tedious and boring. And since it's concentration, you can't cast any other spell that requires concentration without losing it.
That's not my point.
Would you stop a human cleric from "spamming" the light cantrip so they can see?
Would you stop a warlock from making eldritch blast their primary attack?
Would you stop a sorcerer or wizard from using ray of frost?
I don't see the issue of Guidance as being different. If the people who play this way enjoy it, what's the harm?
If the problem that people see is with the one spell, then allow (or require) the player to replace that spell with something else, but to do so (if there is to be any reasonable choice for the layer) there have to be more cantrips available.
Sacrosanct
Legend
Yes it is. Guidance is a concentration spell. Also, the points he brings up are completely relevant in actual game play, not just white room scenarios. If everyone is aware (you shouldn't presume to speak for everyone), it seems they are forgetting it because those two points directly address some of the concerns brought up.
Similar Threads
