D&D 5E Guidance...

[DND_Reborn]

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Removing it is a pretty severe option. It works but - I think guidance adds some nice flavor to clerics.

I could see it adding some nice RP flavor, but unfortunately most of the players at our table are not RP-inclined.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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...

 

[FrogReaver]

Or what people consider insignificant...

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.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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?

 

[FrogReaver]

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.