Guidance Cleric cantrip is really dumb

[ClaytonCross]

I think we now have a new meme for someone that is wrong and digs in about his wrongness.

"Dude you pulled a Clayton Cross"

If the OP chimes in and says I am right do we use "Dude you pulled a Fog Reaver" ?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Another solution:
Make it clear, that casting spells while speaking to others is rude at least. It is also suspicious and may instantly change the outcome of a negotiation to a fight.

In some places (Amn in the FR for example) casting spells is actually illegal, and would get the culprit arrested.

A Divine Soul Sorcerer might be able to slip it through with Subtle Spell, but otherwise the S and V components are obvious.

 

[Quartz]

That's really campaign-dependent. In many campaigns, deities simply wouldn't have that level of individual awareness and micromanagement of their followers, let alone their followers' associates.

Agreed, but in some it is.

 

[Mistwell]

If the OP chimes in and says I am right do we use "Dude you pulled a Fog Reaver" ?

If FrogReaver turns out to be wrong, I will say that FrogReaver pulled a Clayton Cross

 

[5ekyu]

"Its meta-gaming dependence and it breaks immersion as well as belittles the players who might otherwise have a "moment to shine" as the OP put it. I would be annoyed as a GM if I asked for a roll to open a stuck door and the Cleric yelled "I cast guidance!" just as the OP is. The only reason the Cleric knows the player might need help is because I as the GM asked for a role. "

this is starting in media res to show a figment of a problem

The "roll for stuck door" would not - in my games - be the start of this.

it would **likely** be
"I open the door"
"The door seems stuck and won't open. Do you want to try and force it or what?" (For some Gms that might be more commonly done with a blank stare or a bland "what next?" because they see asking for trying to force the door as wrong somehow.
"yes, i will try and force the door."
"As usual i aid him with divine Guidance." (For some Gms this might be replaced with spouting some pre-written blessing off a card that the Gm requires for guidance - just like the verbal components for all others spells likely have to be spoken aloud in character by the player.)
"Ok so make the check..."
[Rolls d20+d4 plus possible advantage if others worked with him which would be unlikely on the first try barring special circumstances.
etc.

The cleric casting guidance on a skill check of others when he normally does so for most every check is not metagaming just because he makes the statement after you asked for the roll.

Its just as likely to believe he did also cast guidance every time the "skill check" was an auto-success... the key is expecting the scene to play differently when you decide it is an auto-success is actually more meta-gamey.

IMO of course.

Seems to me like the degree to which guidance is interuptive is directly related to how much issue the Gm makes of the cleric wanting to guidance whenever they can and tries to make it a *thing* instead of "routine".

I mean, how disruptive would it be if the Gm and the players came to the conclusion that **unless noted otherwise** guidance is being used and they made the skill checks with d20+d4 except in circumstances where there were obvious agreements it was needing to be tracked - like in combat or when they need to do multiple things at once or when quiet is more important than the d4?

 

[ClaytonCross]

"Its meta-gaming dependence and it breaks immersion as well as belittles the players who might otherwise have a "moment to shine" as the OP put it. I would be annoyed as a GM if I asked for a roll to open a stuck door and the Cleric yelled "I cast guidance!" just as the OP is. The only reason the Cleric knows the player might need help is because I as the GM asked for a role. "

this is starting in media res to show a figment of a problem

The "roll for stuck door" would not - in my games - be the start of this.

it would **likely** be
"I open the door"
"The door seems stuck and won't open. Do you want to try and force it or what?" (For some Gms that might be more commonly done with a blank stare or a bland "what next?" because they see asking for trying to force the door as wrong somehow.
"yes, i will try and force the door."
"As usual i aid him with divine Guidance." (For some Gms this might be replaced with spouting some pre-written blessing off a card that the Gm requires for guidance - just like the verbal components for all others spells likely have to be spoken aloud in character by the player.)
"Ok so make the check..."
[Rolls d20+d4 plus possible advantage if others worked with him which would be unlikely on the first try barring special circumstances.
etc.

The cleric casting guidance on a skill check of others when he normally does so for most every check is not metagaming just because he makes the statement after you asked for the roll.

Its just as likely to believe he did also cast guidance every time the "skill check" was an auto-success... the key is expecting the scene to play differently when you decide it is an auto-success is actually more meta-gamey.

IMO of course.

Seems to me like the degree to which guidance is interuptive is directly related to how much issue the Gm makes of the cleric wanting to guidance whenever they can and tries to make it a *thing* instead of "routine".

I mean, how disruptive would it be if the Gm and the players came to the conclusion that **unless noted otherwise** guidance is being used and they made the skill checks with d20+d4 except in circumstances where there were obvious agreements it was needing to be tracked - like in combat or when they need to do multiple things at once or when quiet is more important than the d4?

So I make bad examples. got it.

I agree that the first step should be to talk to players and come to an agreement. That was my suggestion based off personal experience with this spell and my GM.

So if lead scout leads the way through the woods not expecting to run into anyone, you as GM call for perception check, your cool with the Cleric casting Guidance every 10 minutes all day and to make it less annoying on the players the Cleric doesn't have to say it. right?

However, The OP might say having the Cleric saying guiding prayers all day every day while they travel is a bit over board and breaks immersion. Their are other tasks that amount to the same thing. I am guessing that because my GM said basically the same thing when I got the spell. I am required to do a self check rationalize why I am casting prior to casting it. If its not obvious why I am supporting this task that the GM called a roll on then he may ask what my reasoning was and if I can't he does let simply to have a player always aided by guidance. Even your bold points there are times when it doesn't make since to spam the spell to every test out of combat. If we are stealthing through the woods keeping an eye out because we know we are being stalked, he doesn't mind me casting on the scout, because we are on edge and not just walking through the woods. I don't generally get it if I am just keeping an eye out in front.

... Hopefully the is a better example of "breaking emersion with irrational guidance spam"

 

[mrpopstar]

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."

We're all allowed to create our own meaning, but "narrative immersion" is a good baseline to work from (considering its precedent as a creative goal in most all modes of storytelling).

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.

I'll have to pay more attention!

 

[Satyrn]

We're all allowed to create our own meaning, but "narrative immersion" is a good baseline to work from (considering its precedent as a creative goal in most all modes of storytelling).

Does that mean anything more than being interested in the story and cyrious about how it progresses?

 

[mrpopstar]

Does that mean anything more than being interested in the story and cyrious about how it progresses?

I think it would be fair to say that interest and curiosity describe "narrative investment." It could mean that you care and have a stake in the outcome. "Narrative immersion" is the experience of perceiving the story as though you are a part of it. It could mean that you feel like you are inside the story, as opposed to just looking in. You could be deeply invested while not the least bit immersed, but I think it would be difficult to be immersed without also being invested.



EDIT: Really, immersion is about forgetting the world around you. You can be immersed in the experience of playing D&D, without being immersed in the narrative you're creating. When you're immersed in the narrative, you forget that you are playing a game. When things happen that remind you of the fact that you're playing a game, immersion can be challenged.

 

[FrogReaver]

We're all allowed to create our own meaning, but "narrative immersion" is a good baseline to work from (considering its precedent as a creative goal in most all modes of storytelling).

I'll have to pay more attention!

Kinda sounds like narrative immersion may be one of those terms that means something different to practically everyone?