Guidance Cleric cantrip is really dumb

[iamntbatman]

We have a player who has Guidance but has only used it once or twice because she never remembers she has it, and other players never ask her for it.

However, in a game where someone wanted to get the most out of it, I'd do something along the lines of what others have mentioned. If the whole party is using it regularly (and benefiting from it more often than not), I'd tell the cleric player to just do a little hand-waving "I cast Guidance!" gesture to remind the other players to add the 1d4 so that they don't interrupt the flow of other interactions with constant interjections. If they forget, it's on them. Then, on the flipside, as DM I'd specifically call out that Guidance won't be possible for a certain thing (like, if the cleric is up at the front providing guidance to the rogue who is checking a door for traps, he can't also be at the back helping the ranger do a perception check to listen and watch for pursuers). Or, in social situations where casting a spell openly might be a no-no, perhaps just have that go south once, and hopefully the party will remember that openly casting a spell like that to influence a social situation got them in big trouble before, so is maybe not the best idea.

 

[iserith]

Making clear the duration of the task and applying guidance only to tasks that take one minute or less does seem to me to be the best solution which also doesn't change the rules. After the player describes what he or she wants to do, the DM would just have to say the task takes less than a minute or more than a minute at which point the cleric's player will know whether he or she can use the spell.

 

[MarkB]

Yep.

It's not really a balance problem, just like a cantrip that would take 1 minute to cast and healed 1 HP or created 1cp wouldn't be. But like those would be, Guidance is plain a simply a design mistake.

I don't know if the rules really offer a way out of it, and to my understanding you wish there was a way within the rules to mitigate the amount of times this cantrip is being used. Is that right?

Perhaps one feature of the spell that might help you a bit is actually its duration. It might be a bit of a stretch, but I don't think that the rules force the DM to have an "ability check" occur at a specific instant in time, and from the characters' point of view there is no knowledge of "a check" and when it occurs anyway. So you could probably rule that Guidance helps only with tasks that can actually be completed within 1 minute.

This way you can actually have a lot of control over how often Guidance is usable. If you think about it, there aren't actually that many ability checks that certainly can be completed in a minute, it always depends on the circumstances. The game doesn't say that each and every lockpicking takes a specific amount of time, so the DM is free to say that this one takes 30 seconds and Guidance can help, the next one takes 2 minutes and Guidance doesn't help. Most social interaction uses of skills are likely to take much longer.

Does repeated casting of Guidance work for longer tasks? Again, nothing in the rules says that it must be allowed. You can decide that it works, and the cleric can cast it 180 times every 1 minute while the Ranger takes 3 full hours to forage or track the orcs (the cleric still needs to be at touch distance to the target, so again there are plenty of cases when it won't be possible). But you can also decide to be more strict and that it doesn't work, that a single casting must cover the whole task.

That doesn't seem like a helpful solution. By creating a new set of specific constraints on how and when the cantrip can be used, you're going to cause more out-of-character questions and debate, and potentially more arguments as to whether it's applicable to a particular task. How is it useful to have the DM allow Guidance on one lockpicking check, but disallow it on the next, based essentially on a whim?

 

[Mistwell]

I read your post ... I also read the OPs post to which you are replying which sets the context of a specific issue. Part of the issue is:

"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."

Your comment is a reply to that context. So yes, Spamming.

So you are saying your answer does address the OPs concern? If so it would be irrelevant and helpful on the thread.... I don't think so because your addressing spamming here:

"So...why require the player to do anything? Why not just treat it as effectively an aura of helpfulness. 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. "

Is the aura, not an attempt to cut down on spamming and to reduce “and I cast guidance!" as an interruption? If its not what function does it provide?

Your entire argument is based around your summery:

"Now there is no distraction. And it doesn't harm immersion - the general blessing of the clerics deity is over the party and things just tend to work slightly better when near him."

My argument is that your argument is in direct opposition to the post and simply denies it as an issue while at the same time targeting that issue. My point is that spam is the issue and timeline is an interruption. The OP is saying having your players rely on the Cleric at all times for all test is a problem and that spam of the spell on all tests is an interruption. You dismiss both then give the cleric the ability do aid everyone at all times in an effort to reduce spam by implying he does have to say it because it is always in effect. Which double his concern making him want to raise DCs and not be involved in every test...

... so your cop out argument of "did you even read my post?"... Back at you... did you read the OPs post or mind? My post is at the heart of your agreement in a vague attempt to help the OP by making his problem worse..... I was trying to point that out with more tact, but if you want to be bluntly rude and through "did you even read my post?" with out reading and understanding my post I guess I have to be more blunt to be clear.

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?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A player is getting involved in the scene - I don't see how this is a problem. Maybe the DM is too in love with their own voice?

 

[Schmoe]

But let me suggest.., **if** as claimed its about immersion and the cleric being involed in scene for guidance and the apparent frustration that causes, how does making the "divinity chouce" influenced by "what guidance it allows" help? It just means the problem occurs in as broad a type of divine influence as the cleric can find divine-wise... which **also** means (as the OP observed) it pushes the players to get that as often as possible.

It helps because instead of just a default "... and Bobo the Cleric casts Guidance" on everything, now it's part of the RP experience. "Let Olidimarra guide you in disabling that trap." It's justifiable part of the fiction, rather than being a mechanical intrusion.

Where one sees it as maybe a case of "it lets me argue it enough that the players get tired of it" there are other cases where it sets up the ongoing "justification tango" for a spell where it is **claimed** it is not a balance issue.

Is over and over and over discussions ilmud game to justify "this *is* valud use of my guidance" rrally less frustrating than just having it become commonplace?

Seems to me it actually hands **more** game-time to the cantrip for less net benefit... Since its not about the d4... Right? ... So why is that better, less intrusive, less immersion itchy?

Or is it the d4 and this will cut back on it?

Nobody has given any indication it's a balance issue, except that you seem to want to argue against that.

 

[sim-h]

I would go the opposite way of the handwave suggestion, and encourage the player to offer up a suitable IC prayer to his or her deity in order to bestow the necessary guidance. Every use of the cantrip should be an RP heavy moment, with some gravity added to the situation by the casting. If the player does that - good on 'em, no problem at all. If the player balks at the RP element and having to think of wording for prayers, then fair enough I'd still allow it but I think the point would be made. It would take a brave player to carry on flippantly issuing Guidance left right and centre when the DM has asked for context like that.

 

[5ekyu]

It helps because instead of just a default "... and Bobo the Cleric casts Guidance" on everything, now it's part of the RP experience. "Let Olidimarra guide you in disabling that trap." It's justifiable part of the fiction, rather than being a mechanical intrusion.



Nobody has given any indication it's a balance issue, except that you seem to want to argue against that.

So... To be clear, if the cleric using the Guidance per the book said outloud each time "let (insert my gads nsme here) blessing guide you" this would be fine, no need for funky gm-to-player rules debates on divine domains?

Then why have that second preferred ootion rule about limiting the uses to the gods ethos? Why emphasize how "the very act of having to judge whether it applies to a situation would cut down..." If the real intent was to get them to cast it but say the right phrase?

Seems to me the post i responded to was specifically about a rule to reduce use but now its about phrasing?

And yes... Its not about balance at all... Just cutting down its uses... and the right phrase thingy... neither of which have any balance impacts at all.

 

[Schmoe]

So... To be clear, if the cleric using the Guidance per the book said outloud each time "let (insert my gads nsme here) blessing guide you" this would be fine, no need for funky gm-to-player rules debates on divine domains?

There certainly might be some DM judgement and intervention if the player tried to apply the god's will outside of the god's interests, as adjudicated by the DM. That's the nature of the game.

Then why have that second preferred ootion rule about limiting the uses to the gods ethos? Why emphasize how "the very act of having to judge whether it applies to a situation would cut down..." If the real intent was to get them to cast it but say the right phrase?

Seems to me the post i responded to was specifically about a rule to reduce use but now its about phrasing?

And yes... Its not about balance at all... Just cutting down its uses... and the right phrase thingy... neither of which have any balance impacts at all.

I'm frankly getting tired of your innuendo and snarky sarcasm. This will be my last response to you.

There are two solutions to the problem of "constant breaking immersion."

One, reduce the frequency of the interruptions.
Two, make it so that it's not an interruption at all.

I think either one is a good solution. Neither one has anything to do with balance. Sod off.

 

[5ekyu]

As i recall... In my varioys studies limited tho they were, in more primitive cultures with polytheism and animism aspects prominently supported, it was not uncommon for everyday life to imbed small rituals, blessing, offerings etc in task after task. Quick prsyers before cooking, starting a days work, etc and involvement of minor religious functionaries in the performace of most any effort of import - even building a fence or plsnting gardens.

So, imagining a world where divine influence is far more tangible and overt... Is it really a *disruption* to imagine the religious figures being involved in many tasks?

Is it disruptive for the pc cleric to favor the negotiation or is it just a case of "where is the other side's blessing"?