Guidance Cleric cantrip is really dumb

[Paul Farquhar]

The idea that it's a bonus on all skills outside of combat is very much a misinterpretation. You want to Deceive the guard to let you through the gate? The cleric casting Guidance is going to make him more suspicious, not less. Ranger searching for a path through the jungle? It takes longer than a minute, so no Guidance. Want to deliver a speech to Persuade the ruling council to support the war? takes longer than a minute, so no Guidance.

As for initiative rolls, even if you rule Guidance can effect them, most of the time combat breaks out without prior warning, and without prior warning, you can't use Guidance.

 

[ClaytonCross]

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.

I don't disagree. I just said making it an aura that is perpetually on does not resolve the OPs concern. My take is to ask/train your players to use it on more key tests. Ask why the wizard waits for the cleric to check for secret doors when he doesn't expect them, a guard waits for the cleric when he should be looking behind them now, while the rogue is trying to disarm a trap that they know is potentially dangerous?

Request that players try to spare the guidance on trivial roles like casual searches with not exception of finding anything.
Give people on watch disadvantage on a force perception check because they are looking to see where the cleric is instead of watching their back.
Ensure traps are dangerous enough that disarming one is a concern but the spot check to disarm it can give them an Idea of its worth waiting so a simple trap would not warrant guidance every time.
Make some roles time sensitive so that the cleric has to pick one.

This may not resolve the 3 issues entirely but it should make it at least more immersive for the group and bearable for the GM. That said I am sure other GMs could improve this suggestion.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There shouldn't be skill rolls at all for trivial purposes like casual searches. Skill rolls should be for story critical events where failure is meaningful.

As for traps, they should be infrequent enough that it is always going to feel worthwhile getting clerical assistance. Lots of trivial traps = boring adventure.

 

[FrogReaver]

You are mistaken about the ops problem with guidance. His issue never was the 1d4 bonus. It could theoretically be on every check the pcs ever made and it still wouldn't be the problem he's talking about.

His problem is literally the immersion/feel of the game when the cleric player constantly says incast guidance at every possible skill check.

So you are wrong

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.

 

[Uller]

You are mistaken about the ops problem with guidance. His issue never was the 1d4 bonus. It could theoretically be on every check the pcs ever made and it still wouldn't be the problem he's talking about.

His problem is literally the immersion/feel of the game when the cleric player constantly says incast guidance at every possible skill check.

So you are wrong

If the problem is the cleric interrupting the flow of the game on every skill check then numerous solutions have been provided. My preferred method is just give the cleric player a brightly colored d4 and tell him to hand it to whatever player is currently under his guidance spell. When it gets rolled the die is returned to him. He doesn't have to say a word. Or just make it an aura. Or just talk to the player and ask him to cool it and let others have the spotlight. Save guidance for when they ask for it or for really important checks...or stop calling for a check on everything...the DM should only call for meaningful checks anyway.

But if the +1d4 isnt the problem then why is his proposed solution to increase DCs?

 

[CapnZapp]

If the problem is the cleric interrupting the flow of the game on every skill check then numerous solutions have been provided. My preferred method is just give the cleric player a brightly colored d4 and tell him to hand it to whatever player is currently under his guidance spell. When it gets rolled the die is returned to him. He doesn't have to say a word. Or just make it an aura. Or just talk to the player and ask him to cool it and let others have the spotlight. Save guidance for when they ask for it or for really important checks...or stop calling for a check on everything...the DM should only call for meaningful checks anyway.

That still puts the focus on the Cleric player, all the time.

A more streamlined suggestion:

Everybody gets +2 all the time, just for the Cleric being around.

This preserves the mechanical benefit, while utterly removing any impediment to speeding up play, as well as any spotlight issue.

Zapp

Ps. And if this makes the Cleric player think the cantrip is boring, and decides to pick another, then mission accomplished: now all issues are resolved! [emoji4]

 

[Uller]

That still puts the focus on the Cleric player, all the time.

A more streamlined suggestion:

Everybody gets +2 all the time, just for the Cleric being around.

This preserves the mechanical benefit, while utterly removing any impediment to speeding up play, as well as any spotlight issue.

Zapp

Ps. And if this makes the Cleric player think the cantrip is boring, and decides to pick another, then mission accomplished: now all issues are resolved! [emoji4]

I disagree. I use this solution...a player quietly handing another a die is not the same as a player interrupting another.

But I also did list the aura solution...and the solution to just talk to the player. Or for the DM to maybe modify his or her approach to skill checks so only important ones require a roll that PCs might want to work together to maximize chances of success.

There is no one solution here. But if the DM feels inclined to secretly ( or not secretly) buff DCs to nerf guidance he is just encouraging more use of the spell, not less.

 

[mrpopstar]

Personally, I consider all claims of "immersion breaking" to be invalid until the person making the claim defines what he or she means by "immersion." Because if you ask 10 different people what they mean by that, it's likely there will be a number of different answers. Often I find objections to something based on "immersion!" are really something other than that.

It never occurred to me that immersion referenced anything other than the shared act of immersing ourselves in a cooperative narrative. Contributions to the narrative that pull us out of those joyous depths are thus "immersion breaking,' but what constitutes a contribution that pulls us out is (of course) fully subjective.

For myself, the misapplication of guidance would be immersion-breaking. I agreed (silently) with your thought earlier that perhaps there was an issue of calling for too many skill checks. My contribution to the conversation was a reframing of the use and applicability of guidance, which I anticipated would result in fewer skill checks of the sort that are causing the OP ills.

 

[mrpopstar]

Agree.

If you are reading a fantasy novel and every other paragraph the priest character is reciting some prayer it would break emmersion. If instead the author relates a few early instances that the chaplain is praying for his comrades and that it helps them overcome obstacles it would be eatablished with no need to revisit it very often or at all. Likewise at a D&D table players just say "l do X" for at will, no cost abilities all the time because it's a game.

Why single out guidance?

I don't think anyone's singling out guidance, I think it's more of a difference in approach. For some, an assumption of the effects of guidance discards its opportunity as a narrative tool in favor of its numerical utility (which feels gamey, crunchy, and immersion-breaking). For others, its merely an obvious assumption (because duh).

It's a conversation that straddles over the great play style divide.

 

[iserith]

It never occurred to me that immersion referenced anything other than the shared act of immersing ourselves in a cooperative narrative. Contributions to the narrative that pull us out of those joyous depths are thus "immersion breaking,' but what constitutes a contribution that pulls us out is (of course) fully subjective.

For myself, the misapplication of guidance would be immersion-breaking. I agreed (silently) with your thought earlier that perhaps there was an issue of calling for too many skill checks. My contribution to the conversation was a reframing of the use and applicability of guidance, which I anticipated would result in fewer skill checks of the sort that are causing the OP ills.

See, I personally consider "immersion" to be emotional identification with my character and, as a DM, I don't consider "immersion" in that sense a goal when in that role. For others it might mean being solely in "actor stance" or not having mechanics get in the way. For others "breaking immersion" it might just be "you're doing something that annoys me."

So lots of potential definitions of immersion and those are just the ones I've seen bandied about. There might be others and probably are. Therefore, I don't find the term particularly explanatory without an accompanying definition. It's one of those RPG buzz words that means something different to practically everyone. If the OP can define it more clearly, it may be easier to figure out a solution.