D&D General Curbing Guidance after all these years

[jayoungr]

It really doesn't seem like a lot to consider, to me. It just boils down to looking at the in-story situation and remembering the parameters of the spell, which applies to any spell cast in-game. But if it feels like a lot to you, then you can always just ban or limit it, if that's easier for your table.

 

[billd91]

It really doesn't seem like a lot to consider, to me. It just boils down to looking at the in-story situation and remembering the parameters of the spell, which applies to any spell cast in-game. But if it feels like a lot to you, then you can always just ban or limit it, if that's easier for your table.

I think I could see it feeling like a lot to consider, especially compared to other spells, because of the player tendency to spam the hell out of it. What other spell are they trying to spam to the same degree? Pretty much none. That's what makes considering the same things you consider for any other spell feel like a lot to consider with guidance - the increased frequency of your players forcing you to consider them.

 

[jayoungr]

the player tendency to spam the hell out of it. What other spell are they trying to spam to the same degree? Pretty much none.

In fairness, I am lucky enough to have players who don't try to abuse guidance. Feels like this might be better addressed in a session 0 discussion where the DM tells the group "Here are the conditions where guidance works. Think about them before asking me if you can use it on every single task."

 

[John R Davis]

Don't see a problem. Three people in our party can cast it. Given how few proficient skills PCs have no one seems to mind a d4 boost to a d20+0 roll

 

[Charlaquin]

This article makes some good points about Guidance:

The Guidance Cantrip Is Not OP’ed. Here’s Why…

A look at the 5e D&D cantrip, Guidance.... and why it's NOT as good as you think it is! How to deal with the seemingly OP'ed guidance cantrip.

www.hipstersanddragons.com

Here's the takeaway in case the article goes down at some point:

On one hand, yes, that’s a pretty narrow set of circumstances that Guidance actually, logically works in, and all of those requirements make sense with how the spell is worded. In the other hand, I don’t know about y’all, but to me I hate having to be that DM who every time a player wants to use the feature they specifically chose for their build over other available options says “ um, technically that doesn’t work in this situation.” If it happens once or twice, fine, but if it happens regularly it just ends up feeling adversarial. Philosophically, I think it’s better to be on the lookout for reasons the players’ abilities could work than reasons they couldn’t.

That all said, I do think this is an appropriate set of criteria for Guidance. I just think these criteria should probably be discussed with the player who is considering taking the spell at the time they’re considering taking it (presumably meaning during character creation) rather than in the moment they’re trying to cast it. Make sure they’re clear on how restrictive you interpret the spell as being before they take it, rather than setting them up to wish they had taken something else.

 

[FrozenNorth]

On one hand, yes, that’s a pretty narrow set of circumstances that Guidance actually, logically works in, and all of those requirements make sense with how the spell is worded. In the other hand, I don’t know about y’all, but to me I hate having to be that DM who every time a player wants to use the feature they specifically chose for their build over other available options says “ um, technically that doesn’t work in this situation.” If it happens once or twice, fine, but if it happens regularly it just ends up feeling adversarial. Philosophically, I think it’s better to be on the lookout for reasons the players’ abilities could work than reasons they couldn’t.

I get your point, but this doesn’t feel like a situation where the DM is imposing a technical interpretation on the players. I, as the DM, am looking at the adventure through a narrative (as opposed to mechanical) framework, and I expect my players to do the same. If the players cannot, then maybe we aren’t a good fit to play together.

But saying “In the fiction, casting a spell in front of a merchant before haggling is going to be received poorly” or “You didn’t say you were casting guidance until after the rogue attempted to pick the lock” seem very defensible as part of the general social contract, on the par with “no, you can’t use assassinate AFTER you fail your stealth roll because the target is aware of you now”.

 

[Rune]

The only 5e spell that has ever bothered me, and was never addressed by WotC, Guidance is still the same potentially spammable spell in the game. As DM, what saved me from raging against it, is basically just the fact that most of the time I play with either beginners who haven't noticed how easy it is to abuse it, or with players who purposefully choose not to, because they know it's not fun.

If it isn’t fun, then it isn’t a problem. Players are incentivized to take fun options by virtue of their being fun.

On the other hand, if it is actually fun, it isn’t a problem. Because it’s fun.

Personally, I would think the best defense against spamming guidance would be not calling for so many skill checks that spamming is an option anyway.

If the fun is in the tension, reserving the dice for moments when the outcome is truly uncertain (with or without the bonus) and the stakes matter maintains that fun.

If the fun is in succeeding, encouraging players to solve situations without resorting to the dice still produces that fun.

And, as a bonus, produces fun if the fun is in the puzzle-solving.

If, on the other hand, the fun is in the dice rolling, fewer rolls won’t be the answer.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Don't see a problem. Three people in our party can cast it. Given how few proficient skills PCs have no one seems to mind a d4 boost to a d20+0 roll

Weirdly, to me this feels like PCs that are geared to combat and only combat, and this makes me less inclined to adopt a flexible interpretation of guidance as compared to a more well-rounded character.

 

[Charlaquin]

I get your point, but this doesn’t feel like a situation where the DM is imposing a technical interpretation on the players. I, as the DM, am looking at the adventure through a narrative (as opposed to mechanical) framework, and I expect my players to do the same. If the players cannot, then maybe we aren’t a good fit to play together.

But saying “In the fiction, casting a spell in front of a merchant before haggling is going to be received poorly” or “You didn’t say you were casting guidance until after the rogue attempted to pick the lock” seem very defensible as part of the general social contract, on the par with “no, you can’t use assassinate AFTER you fail your stealth roll because the target is aware of you now”.

I definitely am in favor of reminding the player that casting a spell in front of the NPC you’re trying to persuade is a bad idea. I would probably allow the slight backtrack to say the cleric saw that the rogue was getting his lockpicks out and cast guidance then. Just because the player didn’t read the other player’s mind doesn’t mean there wouldn’t have been an opportunity for the character to see what the other character was doing and anticipate that they might be able to use help.

 

[Voadam]

This thread inspired me to start a different one on Guidance RAW expected applications to explore what the baseline RAW uses of it are considering its limitations.