Guidance...

dnd4vr

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
Honestly at that point - i'd just make it a +1 skill aura as long as a cleric with the cantrip was within 30 ft of you.
Which if someone really has problems with it applying to nearly every check would probably be the best way to fix it.
It's already a +1d4 bonus to nearly all skills for the OP. Lowering that down to a +1 solves his cricism that it boosts checks to high. Making it reliable and no booking at that point hurts nothing for him.

I never thought i'd see the day when a +1 to all checks was stated as being too powerful. I mean what the what?
Well, your suggestion of a simple +1 to every skill check to (assuming...) allies within 30 removes the touch restriction and removes the action requirement since you're making it passive. There is no longer a concentration requirement until it is used as well, freeing up the caster to use a second concentration spell while the party still benefits from the +1 bonus.

So, as I said, it makes it even more powerful in some ways, and despite the simplicity in bookkeeping, is nothing I would want. If the OP wants it, that is great for them. :)

Now, if,you had said something like:

You can choose one target within 30 feet of you and grant the target a +1 bonus to ability checks. If you and the target are more than 30 feet apart, the target loses this bonus. You can have only one target selected at a time.

THAT would have been a more reasonable suggestion without making the feature even more effective (in some ways) than Guidance already is.
 
Well, your suggestion of a simple +1 to every skill check to (assuming...) allies within 30 removes the touch restriction and removes the action requirement since you're making it passive.
When you can cast it on them and then they move away from you and still get the benefit - touch really wasn't a meaningful restriction in the first place

There is no longer a concentration requirement until it is used as well, freeing up the caster to use a second concentration spell while the party still benefits from the +1 bonus.
Is that a problem? I don't think so - but if you really think it is then simply change it to the cleric must be concentrating on guidance and allow him to do so indefinitely until concentration ends.

So, as I said, it makes it even more powerful in some ways, and despite the simplicity in bookkeeping, is nothing I would want. If the OP wants it, that is great for them. :)
But all the things you are citing as being more powerful are such minor criticisms that they are insignificant.

Now, if,you had said something like:

You can choose one target within 30 feet of you and grant the target a +1 bonus to ability checks. If you and the target are more than 30 feet apart, the target loses this bonus. You can have only one target selected at a time.

THAT
would have been a more reasonable suggestion without making the feature even more effective (in some ways) than Guidance already is.
For the OP that ability you are describing would still apply to nearly every skill check he encounters. There's no reason at that point not to make it always on. A +1 bonus never did break anything.

You see for the OP - guidance is already a 1d4 bonus that applies to nearly every skill check. If that's not happening in your game then my proposed change isn't for you. It's certainly not a change I would use either because the +1d4 really doesn't come up often in my games.
 

dnd4vr

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
But all the things you are citing as being more powerful are such minor criticisms that they are insignificant.

For the OP that ability you are describing would still apply to nearly every skill check he encounters. There's no reason at that point not to make it always on. A +1 bonus never did break anything.

You see for the OP - guidance is already a 1d4 bonus that applies to nearly every skill check. If that's not happening in your game then my proposed change isn't for you. It's certainly not a change I would use either because the +1d4 really doesn't come up often in my games.
I don't agree those are insignificant, but that is fine. Everyone has their own opinion after all. My initial response to the OP was just remove it from the game. We have, and don't miss it in the least.
 
I don't agree those are insignificant, but that is fine. Everyone has their own opinion after all. My initial response to the OP was just remove it from the game. We have, and don't miss it in the least.
Removing it is a pretty severe option. It works but - I think guidance adds some nice flavor to clerics.
 
I don't agree those are insignificant, but that is fine. Everyone has their own opinion after all. My initial response to the OP was just remove it from the game. We have, and don't miss it in the least.
Yea, I've concluded that people have strange ideas about what is significant.

I find usually it's not that the change is significant but just like in politics when one side dislikes something they will latch on to any semi-reasonable sounding talking point they can in order to make sure the thing they are against doesn't happen. That's why there's so much hypocrisy in every position one side or the other takes. It's human nature I suppose. The fight for what you want in anyway you can mindset.
 

dnd4vr

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
Yea, I've concluded that people have strange ideas about what is significant.

I find usually it's not that the change is significant but just like in politics when one side dislikes something they will latch on to any semi-reasonable sounding talking point they can in order to make sure the thing they are against doesn't happen. That's why there's so much hypocrisy in every position one side or the other takes. It's human nature I suppose. The fight for what you want in anyway you can mindset.
Or what people consider insignificant... ;)
 

dnd4vr

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
I'm fairly certain that if this was a DPR thread and I was complaining about 1 class getting +1 to hit and damage more than another class you'd be the first to tell me it's insignificant. ;)
You shouldn't make assumptions, you know... I would hardly consider a +1 to hit and damage insignificant under any circumstances. But let's not hijack the thread any further, agreed?
 
You shouldn't make assumptions, you know... I would hardly consider a +1 to hit and damage insignificant under any circumstances. But let's not hijack the thread any further, agreed?
At least you are consistent!

Anyways - I think one problem in discussions is when a point is stated in support of a position that is then contested. Discussing that point isn't hi-jacking the thread - so long as both sides remember at all times why they were discussing that point to begin with.
 

dnd4vr

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
At least you are consistent!

Anyways - I think one problem in discussions is when a point is stated in support of a position that is then contested. Discussing that point isn't hi-jacking the thread - so long as both sides remember at all times why they were discussing that point to begin with.
True, I suppose I mean more that I would prefer feedback from the OP on our stances and suggestions before I bother investing anymore time and effort into it. Also, I certainly didn't want this this to become a "what is significant and what is not" debate since it is ultimately a matter of opinion.
 
True, I suppose I mean more that I would prefer feedback from the OP on our stances and suggestions before I bother investing anymore time and effort into it. Also, I certainly didn't want this this to become a "what is significant and what is not" debate since it is ultimately a matter of opinion.
Just a side note - If significant and insignificant isn't ever settled then that same reasoning can shut down virtually any discussion or line of reasoning by anyone invoking the mere notion of significant/insignificant.

For example - consider someone took the position that guidance in the OP's game was actually having an insignificant impact. That can't be debated now because it's ultimately a matter of opinion? I don't think that's the way to go.

That said I'm more interested in the Op's responses as well.
 

dnd4vr

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
Just a side note - If significant and insignificant isn't ever settled then that same reasoning can shut down virtually any discussion or line of reasoning by anyone invoking the mere notion of significant/insignificant.

For example - consider someone took the position that guidance in the OP's game was actually having an insignificant impact. That can't be debated now because it's ultimately a matter of opinion? I don't think that's the way to go.

That said I'm more interested in the Op's responses as well.
To answer your aside quickly -

You take this too far. Of course there is a reason for stating opinion and expressing points of view, especially when one considers how some people reading the posts haven't decided for themselves yet where they stand on a discussion.

My point was, ultimately, once all that is done, there is no purpose in a meaningless back-and-forth about conflicting views once both sides have decided for themselves what is significant and what isn't. Once that happens, further debate is nearly always fruitless and a waste of time.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
It’s Help with a character build opportunity cost.
Not worth trying to houserules or get pedantic about timing to nerf it. If the usage of it bothers you, talk to the players about not spamming it.
 

Mistwell

Hero
It might have been said already, but a simple fix is to make it a flat +1 bonus instead of a d4. For a cantrip, that isn't too day IMO.
This does nothing to reduce the spamming issue of the OP though. I don't think the issue is the bonus. It's the frequency of applying the bonus. [Edit - I see this debate has evolved well past my comment. Ah well.]
 
Last edited:
This does nothing to reduce the spamming issue of the OP though. I don't think the issue is the bonus. It's the frequency of applying the bonus.
OP argued previously it was at least in part the size of the bonus. So many guidance related threads now I couldn't point ya to which one.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
It’s Help with a character build opportunity cost.
Not worth trying to houserules or get pedantic about timing to nerf it. If the usage of it bothers you, talk to the players about not spamming it.
Hmmm...

What if guidance was written that way...
***
Guidance
Self
30' range
Concentration.
Reaction

The spell is cast when a task is begun (trigger) within and must be maintained for the duration of that task. The effect is to provide the HELP action (or assist others) to any ability check(s) associate with that task. The spell ends once the task is concluded, abandoned, the two are more than 30' apart or the caster takes any action other than the help action. The caster need not abide by the Assist others restriction, being able to perform the task themselves and the task bring one ehere teompeople can do it better than one, as the benefit is coming in the form of knowledge, clarity, etc from the higher power.

Once the task has concluded, the guidance ends.


***
Obvioudly language needs cleaning yo add "can see" and the usual caveats and standards but you get the gist- it's the cleric getting a little help from above for his bud.

So in this model, we dont have a d4, dont have any table disputes over find we didnt we and duration is keyed to the task and sctions.
 
Hmmm...

What if guidance was written that way...
***
Guidance
Self
30' range
Concentration.
Reaction

The spell is cast when a task is begun (trigger) within and must be maintained for the duration of that task. The effect is to provide the HELP action (or assist others) to any ability check(s) associate with that task. The spell ends once the task is concluded, abandoned, the two are more than 30' apart or the caster takes any action other than the help action. The caster need not abide by the Assist others restriction, being able to perform the task themselves and the task bring one ehere teompeople can do it better than one, as the benefit is coming in the form of knowledge, clarity, etc from the higher power.

Once the task has concluded, the guidance ends.


***
Obvioudly language needs cleaning yo add "can see" and the usual caveats and standards but you get the gist- it's the cleric getting a little help from above for his bud.

So in this model, we dont have a d4, dont have any table disputes over find we didnt we and duration is keyed to the task and sctions.
You know, the basic idea of changing guidance to essentially granting a help action from range and potentially on skills that help normally can't help on is a phenomenally good idea! I love this. Though help is a bit stronger than +1d4, so might not work in every game - but for the OP that is having the issue of +1d4 and help then this solution would be amazing I think!.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
You know, the basic idea of changing guidance to essentially granting a help action from range and potentially on skills that help normally can't help on is a phenomenally good idea! I love this. Though help is a bit stronger than +1d4, so might not work in every game - but for the OP that is having the issue of +1d4 and help then this solution would be amazing I think!.
Helps value bri g better than 1d4 is in terms of average usually better, yes, but for totals it is less, you are still limited by your non-guidance max.

But sure this will vary in import from table to table.
 

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
The alternative is to treat the target as the creature itself and interpolate in the creature's fictional actions represented by the mechanics being used at the table in place of the references to mechanics found in the spell. I.e. something like: This is obviously unplayable and not my preference.
The construction I'm drawn to is that RPG rules model the game fiction. So for certain elements of the fiction, there is a counterpart in the model. When speaking at a mechanical level - i.e. rules - we're articulating play at that level.

So it is right to say "one willing creature" and address that creature as if it were going to roll a d4, because articulated on the model layer, that is what is happening. This could add a lot of words to the text if we had to acknowledge it each and every time... but we do not need to do that.

The target continues to be the creature, represented at the model layer.
 

Advertisement

Top