Guidance Cleric cantrip is really dumb

[Quickleaf]

I'm getting really frustrated with the Cleric cantrip Guidance and I'm wondering what your guys thoughts on it are.

For those who don't know Guidance is a Cleric cantrip with a casting time of one action (concentration 1 minute) that works as follows: You touch one willing creature. Once before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to one ability check of its choice. It can roll the die before or after making the ability check. The spell then ends.

Practically speaking, this means that whenever any member of the party is making any sort of check out of combat the cleric can, and strategically should, cast guidance on them.

The community “solution” seems to be either:

1. the DM should basically force there to be none, or minimal, non-time sensitive checks to force the cleric not to waste his action casting guidance or
2. Up the DC of checks appropriately

My issue though NOT on the technical aspect. The 1d4/ the DC of the check doesn't bother me. My issue is how the cantrips existence affects the immersion/feel of the game. Now, anytime anytime anyone tries to do anything the cleric pipes up saying, “and I cast guidance!" (to make matters worse [although outside the scope of this post] usually someone else will pipe up saying “and I use the help action!”) Already we now have this annoying pocket cleric who is always involved in everything, even situations that should be another character’s time to shine.

But it gets even worse. Often, the party will be in a (out of combat) situation where several different characters will want to use their skills to do something. The thief wants to try to pick the lock on a chest while the ranger sweeps the room for traps and the wizard starts to translate the strange glyphs on the walls. Instead of everyone going about and doing their thing, everyone has to wait for the cleric to come over and give each of them guidance.

And even when it’s not happening all at the same time we have some ridiculous looking situations. The Bard wants to have a conversation with an NPC and try and convince them of something? Hold on, the cleric’s got to be there! Oh, the Fighter is trying to size up different weapons at the shop? Gotta have the priest with ya. Barbarian having a drinking contest? Make sure the clerics on hand; not for the recovery of course, but for the initial drink.

I’ve been told if it bothers me so much I should just ban it from use in those kind of situations, but I really hate taking away player autonomy and contradicting the PHB. Thoughts?
P.S: All this stuff also applies to the help action, although at least there most DM’s I know (and I do this) require an explanation of how they are helping so it at least makes sense; guidance obviously cannot have the same requirement.

Player autonomy is great...until your player go out of control.

To enjoy a satisfying story experience (which isn't important to all groups/players, mind you), it's sometimes necessary for players to exercise self-restraint (and for the DM, similarly, to let players beat villains prematurely & other muck with his/her "plans"). It's just part of the social contract of gaming.

I'd pow-wow with the cleric player, and express yourself: "I'm having trouble with what guidance is doing narratively in such-and-such a way. I'd like to see you reign in your use of guidance because it's disruptive right now. Perhaps reserving it for moments that fit your PC thematically & you can offer a bit of role-play to support, rather than just saying "I cast guidance" ad infinitum. If this doesn't work for you, you could swap out guidance for another cantrip. Sometimes, we all need to rein ourselves in from what the rules say is possible, me as DM included."

 

[iserith]

It doesn't really matter what 10 other people say... the OP says that it bothers HIM, and that's why he started the thread asking for help.

So if you want to help, make your suggestions.

What are you going to achieve instead by saying that the OP's discomfort is invalid?

First, I did make my suggestions.

Second, I didn't discount the OP's discomfort, only the label that was used as a reason for the discomfort.

 

[5ekyu]

It doesn't really matter what 10 other people say... the OP says that it bothers HIM, and that's why he started the thread asking for help.

So if you want to help, make your suggestions.

What are you going to achieve instead by saying that the OP's discomfort is invalid?

Actually, changing piv instead of changing rules or play can help avoid problems.

I have found, in life and in game, when someone complains getting them to look at it from a step back can help get to the "problem" in different ways and often avoid the double down yeah-feel-your-pain fixes.

This is especially true if your "problem" is at its core "what others are doing."

Lets give an example...

Lets say IN MY GAMES i added the Guidance pre-approval Angel-insurance thingy as an immersive fix that has nothing at all nosirree to do with balance.

Lets say from that i tell a cleric of Altoid the White they cannot cast Guidance to help detect or disarm traps cuz you know *I the GM* have decided AtW does not like that today.

Thief fails checks, four folks get blasted... Fire thingy

Now the AtW cleric wants to heal... I say ok.

Room later they see similar signs... I still say "AtW says no Guidance"

Now they instead ask for some protection spells from the cleric or enhance ability and i say yes cuz it was only Guidance that needed immersion proofing...

I can guarantee you that in my game and in more than a few others the so-called immersive gains are DOA due to the obvious gross illogic and inconsistency.

Showing a GM to look at it differently rather than just reinforce their impression can help avoid problems.

My suggestion was to boost the duration with concentration so that the cleric can portray it as a prayer for blessing and yet not get into the scene itself. At least an hour means no more immersion breaking last minute interrupto cleric.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I understand this post of yours less than your first one. Did you dictate it and have it translate by Google or something? I am honestly not sure what you're trying to communicate. Could you summarize your point in a sentence or two?

1. You said it is not about spam.. but the OP did in the paragraph I quoted.

2. Then you addressed spamming by making the spell an aura which spams the whole party worsening 2 of the OPs 3 issues to resolve the 1 of vocal spamming by making it automatic to all in the area.

(I like to explain thoroughly so I do over explain. its a problem. That said I did read you post and the OPs post and both previous replies address your post in the contest of its relevance to the OPs post.)

 

[FrogReaver]

1. You said it is not about spam.. but the OP did in the paragraph I quoted.

2. Then you addressed spamming by making the spell an aura which spams the whole party worsening 2 of the OPs 3 issues to resolve the 1 of vocal spamming by making it automatic to all in the area.

(I like to explain thoroughly so I do over explain. its a problem. That said I did read you post and the OPs post and both previous replies address your post in the contest of its relevance to the OPs post.)

The OP's stated issue wasn't the spamming of a 1d4 bonus to a skill check.

The OP's stated issue was that the cleric was all the time saying I use guidance.

 

[Mistwell]

1. You said it is not about spam.. but the OP did in the paragraph I quoted.

Yes. The OP said it's about spamming a spell. I addressed it in a manner which does not result in any of the problems that come from spamming. You then responded to me talking about spamming again. Given my response dealt with the spamming issues, your response didn't make sense in that respect.

2. Then you addressed spamming by making the spell an aura which spams the whole party worsening 2 of the OPs 3 issues to resolve the 1 of vocal spamming by making it automatic to all in the area.

Ohhhhh now I know where this communication went wrong. You think spamming means something different!

No, an aura does not spam a spell, at least not in the manner the OP is talking about or I was talking about. He meant the player SAYING IT over and over. It was taking him and his players out of the situation. A passive aura solves that issue. He's not objecting to the existence of the bonus, THAT isn't the "spamming" issue. He's fine with the players getting that +1d4 bonus. He says there are no balance issues involved with it. He's bothered by the verbalization by the player of talking about the spell no matter what anyone does, and needing his PC to go get involved directly with everyone else's business. That's all solved by making it a passive aura. No more of the spamming issues he's referring to. The PC need not be involved in what's going on, and the player need say nothing when it's happening, which means all those issues go away.

He does not appear to care about spreading that bonus literally to everyone all the time...those are not the spamming issues he's raising.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Yes. The OP said it's about spamming a spell. I addressed it in a manner which does not result in any of the problems that come from spamming. You then responded to me talking about spamming again. Given my response dealt with the spamming issues, your response didn't make sense in that respect.

omitted...
Nobody spammed anything, ever, in what I suggested. Nor did the cleric's player ever say anything, ever.
...omited

You contradict yourself.

LOL Ohhhhh now I know where this communication went wrong. You think spamming means something different!

No, an aura does not spam a spell, at least not in the manner the OP is talking about or I was talking about. He meant the player SAYING IT over and over. It was taking him and his players out of the situation. A passive aura solves that issue. He's not objecting to the existence of the bonus, THAT isn't the "spamming" issue. He's fine with the players getting that +1d4 bonus. He says there are no balance issues involved with it. He's bothered by the verbalization by the player of talking about the spell no matter what anyone does, and needing his PC to go get involved directly with everyone else's business. That's all solved by making it a passive aura. No more of the spamming issues he's referring to. The PC need not be involved in what's going on, and the player need say nothing when it's happening, which means all those issues go away.

He does not appear to care about spreading that bonus literally to everyone all the time...those are not the spamming issues he's raising.

From the dictionary:
spam
spam/
verb
gerund or present participle: spamming
send the same message indiscriminately to (a large number of Internet users).

An aura is spamming. It indiscriminately sends the benefit to all players at once.

The OP had 3 issues

1. Vocal spamming (which you address)

Now, anytime anytime anyone tries to do anything the cleric pipes up saying, “and I cast guidance!"

2. Cleric involvement in all checks at all times by spamming into every check even unimportant ones.

Already we now have this annoying pocket cleric who is always involved in everything, even situations that should be another character’s time to shine.

But it gets even worse. Often, the party will be in a (out of combat) situation where several different characters will want to use their skills to do something. The thief wants to try to pick the lock on a chest while the ranger sweeps the room for traps and the wizard starts to translate the strange glyphs on the walls. Instead of everyone going about and doing their thing, everyone has to wait for the cleric to come over and give each of them guidance.

And even when it’s not happening all at the same time we have some ridiculous looking situations. The Bard wants to have a conversation with an NPC and try and convince them of something? Hold on, the cleric’s got to be there! Oh, the Fighter is trying to size up different weapons at the shop? Gotta have the priest with ya. Barbarian having a drinking contest? Make sure the clerics on hand; not for the recovery of course, but for the initial drink.

To which your reply with:

If you're in 30' of the cleric then, when out of combat and not in initiative, all PCs get a +1d4 to their ability checks.

Now there is no distraction. And it doesn't harm immersion

But that is not true, Wait the cleric is not here we need him to come over her so we can get guidance since he was standing by the rogue 60ft away. The aura amounts to still waiting for the Cleric spam for every action. You just cut out the "I cast guidance" and changed it to "Move to player X so he is in range of guidance". This in many games is worse than "I cast guidance!" because the Cleric announces he casts the spell and players can assume he moved in range to do so, but now you have introduced having to track the players location at all times to see if your already in range or not while he is "guiding" someone else. Which is likely to stem more conversations or require a map when not normally necessary which will slow down the game.

3. Escalating DC due to spamming on every test

The community “solution” seems to be either:

1. the DM should basically force there to be none, or minimal, non-time sensitive checks to force the cleric not to waste his action casting guidance or
2. Up the DC of checks appropriately

My issue though NOT on the technical aspect. The 1d4/ the DC of the check doesn't bother me. My issue is how the cantrips existence affects the immersion/feel of the game.

So this is again not about the technical aspect of spell but the over use of it due to spamming EVERY LITTLE TEST, there is no such thing as trivial any more. Every assumes every test is so important that it needs the cleric at all times. So as a result there is no point in low DC tests since they will always be +1d4. As a result most GMs will +1 or +2 to tests so trivial tests will fail once in a while. This breaks immersion because why does players wait for the Cleric when they don't suspect any thing? Well they do it because of habit, Partly trained be the GM, and Partly by the overly helpfull Spamming Cleric.

I would also say you introduce a 4th issue with an Aura. Guidance is concentration to prevent it from affecting multiple tests at once as a CANTRIP. Without that limitation it now stacks with Bless so ... just give the whole party +1d4 on every roll at all times... If a GM called for a players to make a stealth and perception test at the same time to spot and hide from a up coming patrol for example, the target of guidance would normally have to choose one of he 2 checks. Your aura eliminates that making the cantrip guidance as powerful or more powerful than the first level spell Bless with effects saves and attack roles instead of skill checks....

Your now allowing a rogue to have a +1d4 to spot a trap, disarm a trap, and save from a failed attempt from a trap all at the same time from one player..... That's not going to decrease Cleric's spam,

Cleric's​

involvement in all checks, and the party waiting for the Cleric to get in range before they do anything.

 

[ClaytonCross]

The OP's stated issue wasn't the spamming of a 1d4 bonus to a skill check.

The OP's stated issue was that the cleric was all the time saying I use guidance.

So this is misunderstanding caused by Mistwell's requirement to reduce my posts to 2 sentences so he can understand it.

The OP said " My issue though NOT on the technical aspect. The 1d4/ the DC of the check doesn't bother me. My issue is how the cantrips existence affects the immersion/feel of the game. Now, anytime anytime anyone tries to do anything the cleric pipes up saying, “and I cast guidance!" (to make matters worse [although outside the scope of this post] usually someone else will pipe up saying “and I use the help action!”) Already we now have this annoying pocket cleric who is always involved in everything, even situations that should be another character’s time to shine."

Which is more than one form of spamming.

1. Spamming "and I cast guidance!" to break action flow and emersion because its this ever present interruption to other players turns.

2. Spamming the spell to every check puts the Cleric in front and center of every task. Basically every character waiting for their turn to use the Cleric.

3. Spamming the spell guidance is not an issue in the 1d4 bonus mechanically of itself its the constant use of it that makes every mundane task become treated as a serious issue waiting for the clerics attention. The result of every task being a "serious issue" is that the DC gets raised.

As Op said the common resolution is, "Up the DC of checks appropriately" to nullify its impact not of the individual use but because when its spammed it just becomes part of the "standard" calculation.

 

[CapnZapp]

As Op said the common resolution is, "Up the DC of checks appropriately" to nullify its impact not of the individual use but because when its spammed it just becomes part of the "standard" calculation.

This is a shifty shifty resolution, and nobody should do it.

If your concern is one of spotlight, and not balance or difficulty; simply assume that any atomic (=non-continuous) skill check when the Cleric is present (and not busy) gets a +1d4 bonus; no actual intervention by the Cleric player needed (or wanted).

Of course, if the Cleric took the cantrip precisely because it allows her to meddle in the affairs of everybody else, allow her to freely redo the cantrip choice to pick something else. This will also mean nobody gets the bonus.

Under no circumstances is upping the DCs a good choice; all that does is hose the player's choice as well as any action taken when the Cleric isn't around. It's very bad DMing.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes its silly but you just have to buy into it I suppose. Our cleric spams it all the time for initiative checks. Its basically expertise on all skills outside combat and a bonus to initiative rolls.