D&D (2024) Sharp shooter/Great Weapon Mastery

[Stalker0]

The thing is, Guidance is only useful for people who want to play a support character.

Or a skill god. You take guidance to maximize skills.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I disagree, difficult decisions are not the essence of game design. If I sit down to play a game I should not have to make "difficult" decisions on whether or not my method of play is effective.

It's not really a game, in my book, if you're not making trade offs.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Minor Illusion, Mage Hand, Control Flames, Mending. Are those good enough? Each of them can turn a situation that would have been a failure into a success.

And you are free to try to use them on reaction to someone's failed roll.

So, support play isn't meaningful. Helping your team mates succeed is a pointless endeavor?

If you didn't do anything to deserve it, yeah. There are no decision points or imagination if you just automatically do it. 'I passively add +2.5 to every roll ever' is not an interesting character trait or gameplay feature.

Again, I look to the champion fighter and the "I attack" thing, and well, I don't like that, but people tell me all the time how that is important to their enjoyment, because they want a simple and effective strategy, not to have to spend twenty minutes devising elaborate plans.

If a player's only contribution to the game is pressing one button over and over, that's on them.

Look, I do sort of get where you're coming from. I just don't believe in having an ability that, if optimally used, is detrimental to the overall game experience, just to cater to... someone like that. There are already support roles that are more interesting than being a passive +2.5-bot, so they definitely have options to pick from.

Bless is the same bonus (+1d4) to ALL saves and ALL attacks for THREE people. And attacks and saves are often life or death, while Guidance could be used for a number of things that were far less important.

Bless is bustedly good, but it costs slots and concentration, as you well know. It's certainly one of the abilities your support-oriented players might want to pick up, because at least there may be a moment's engagement with 'should I use a slot on this, at this time? but what if I want my concentration on that...' and boom, we are actually making decisions and playing a game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's not really a game, in my book, if you're not making trade offs.

Making trade-offs isn't the same as making difficult decisions.

And isn't it a trade-off to take Guidance instead of something else? Why do I ALSO need to make more trade-offs? Making things more and more difficult to use effectively doesn't always make the game better and better, just more and more restrictive.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And you are free to try to use them on reaction to someone's failed roll.

So, I no longer need to find another cantrip that can turn a failed situation into a successful one, but another cantrip that does the exact mechanical thing that Guidance does?

Okay, while I'm looking for that, you can accept that Find Traps is one of the best spells in the game, right? I mean, find me another spell that allows you to know whether or not there are traps nearby with just a single action, no chance of failure, and without having to actually look. Sure, it doesn't actually tell you where the trap is, and there are plenty of "traps" that it doesn't actually find, and you wouldn't cast it if you didn't already think there were traps nearby, but it is the only spell that does exactly what it does, so it must be the best!

If you didn't do anything to deserve it, yeah. There are no decision points or imagination if you just automatically do it. 'I passively add +2.5 to every roll ever' is not an interesting character trait or gameplay feature.

So, why does the fighter deserve to attack twice at level 5? I mean, it takes no imagination, no decisions, they just automatically can attack twice instead of once. Don't they have to EARN that ability to attack twice so that it is an interesting gameplay feature? And what about those level 11 paladins? Just free extra damage, on all weapons, any time they hit, they just have to remember to roll the die. Terrible ability, because they should have to use their imagination to justify that ability. /s

Or maybe... players don't really need to "earn" their class abilities?

If a player's only contribution to the game is pressing one button over and over, that's on them.

Look, I do sort of get where you're coming from. I just don't believe in having an ability that, if optimally used, is detrimental to the overall game experience, just to cater to... someone like that. There are already support roles that are more interesting than being a passive +2.5-bot, so they definitely have options to pick from.

Such as..... what? What are these other options, without going to spell slots?

See, what is annoying me here is that you are attributing negative traits to someone for picking this ability. They are "someone like that". No idea what you mean, but it is clearly negative.

And, again, I'm repeating myself here, but I'm HAPPY with the change to it being a reaction. That's a good change and it eliminates basically all of your issues for how it reduces fun at the table. My issue is solely on limiting it to once per character per day. That is an insane restriction. And we have had multiple better ideas presented, but there is still this sense that Guidance at all is bad for the game, unless it is nerfed to the point that it might as well not exist.

Bless is bustedly good, but it costs slots and concentration, as you well know. It's certainly one of the abilities your support-oriented players might want to pick up, because at least there may be a moment's engagement with 'should I use a slot on this, at this time? but what if I want my concentration on that...' and boom, we are actually making decisions and playing a game.

And Guidance also cost concentration, but that never mattered which is why they got rid of it.

Why are you so convinced that choosing Guidance and engaging with it is bad for the game? Seriously, you know who pays more attention to the rogue disarming the trap between the barbarian with nothing to do and the cleric with guidance? Sure, the cleric didn't have an existential crisis over choosing whether or not they can afford to use their ability in this moment, but they were certainly engaged and paying attention. Meanwhile, the barbarian is just waiting, because they have NOTHING to do. Which is better? Having nothing to do and therefore not caring, or having something to do, and knowing it will help, so you use it to help and participate? I know which I'd choose every single time.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And isn't it a trade-off to take Guidance instead of something else? Why do I ALSO need to make more trade-offs? Making things more and more difficult to use effectively doesn't always make the game better and better, just more and more restrictive.

Well, I'm a little astonished to find that there's somebody who actually enjoyed that aspect of the game, but since you do, or did, I'm sorry for your loss.

 

[FrogReaver]

Guidance spam has never been a problem in our games, the spam part just doesn't happen.

I have a hard time understanding how there aren't fictional consequences for a character spending nearly every second of his waking life casting guidance. And those consequences are typically going to make the decision to cast it or not a more tactical choice in many situations.

Social Skills - casting guidance may be deterimental to the social endeavor especially when done in the NPC's sight.
Stealth - if ally is scouting ahead then just call for the check when it actually matters. If whole group is stealthing then apply disadvantage to the caster for making noise casting the spell. Also, in general the character spamming guidance shouldn't be simultaneously scavenging for food or being alert for signs of danger, etc. In many contexts having the extra independent action may prove more useful.

 

[Stalker0]

I have a hard time understanding how there aren't fictional consequences for a character spending nearly every second of his waking life casting guidance. And those consequences are typically going to make the decision to cast it or not a more tactical choice in many situations.

Social Skills - casting guidance may be deterimental to the social endeavor especially when done in the NPC's sight.
Stealth - if ally is scouting ahead then just call for the check when it actually matters. If whole group is stealthing then apply disadvantage to the caster for making noise casting the spell. Also, in general the character spamming guidance shouldn't be simultaneously scavenging for food or being alert for signs of danger, etc. In many contexts having the extra independent action may prove more useful.

People often forget the 1 minute duration on guidance. You see a guard up ahead you want to persuade; cleric throws on a little guidance in the alleyway, bard steps out and does his little talk, gets a bonus.

Any kind of climbing, why wouldn't I put guidance on every single party member climbing up the rope?
Swim, same idea. If we all need to cross that body of water, why not throw on a guidance and have each person cross individually?
Knowledge checks, all day every day. Why on earth would I ever consult my memory on an important topic without a little holy memory tonic?
Rogue's about to check a statue for traps, of course a little guidance on top, it would almost be unholy not to help your friend check out a dangerous device!

Sure, there are checks where guidance won't or can't come up. Stealth is a common one, certain checks that happen in combat or our simultaneous. Yet there are MANY MANY MANY checks that are easy to get all guidance all the time on with a little bit of creative play....and yes fictionally its quite silly. So the idea of altering the mechanics so that Dms don't have to add in those little narrative fixes I am all for.

 

[Kannik]

So, if someone takes dueling fighting style do you increase all monster hit points by +6? If someone takes archery fighting style, do you increase all AC by +2? These are also passive benefits that make all fights less challenging. If the group equips shields, do you increase monster to hits by +2?

The thing it sounds like you are saying here is "It is bad if the party has a way to make it easier to succeed on skill checks." But... why is that the case? Why is support play bad? After all, by choosing to make a character who does support, I'm not choosing to do other things. Why is that cost not good enough, and I also have to be limited and unable to consistently provide support like I can consistently provide utility or consistently provide damage?

Leaving aside my views on the archery fighting style, the key difference here for me is that those are happening during combat, where every character is going to acting in differing ways and with differing abilities, and having to make choices based on position, type of enemies, environment, and etc. And if an entire party chooses to be fighters, rangers, and paladins with shields, then there are a myriad of things that they will face that will not be aided by those shields.

Conversely, guidance's main usage is outside of combat, where it can very often be employed sequentially, without consideration, and continually. "But being support means I can't do other things" doesn't often apply out of combat except in unusual circumstances; in fact you can even cast guidance (it lasts a minute), and then use the help action for a double bonus to the aided character. Or you can cast guidance on another character then go off to climb a rope, talk to someone, pick a lock, or eat some bread.

But there still are choices. Sure, "do I use this ability I chose to take" isn't a choice, but that doesn't mean that suddenly there are no choices anywhere else. Why don't those count? Why do we need to make it so, effectively, the Help action if you have proficiency is the ONLY way to offer skill support unless you are a Bard?

Hey, I'm all for additional meaningful support choices being available to many classes -- that would be great! 4e as an example included support for supporting for many classes. But for me, Guidance 2014 as written doesn't function in game as meaningful choice of support.

 

[Chaosmancer]

People often forget the 1 minute duration on guidance. You see a guard up ahead you want to persuade; cleric throws on a little guidance in the alleyway, bard steps out and does his little talk, gets a bonus.

Any kind of climbing, why wouldn't I put guidance on every single party member climbing up the rope?
Swim, same idea. If we all need to cross that body of water, why not throw on a guidance and have each person cross individually?

Sorry for being a bit of a pendant, but this triggers me every single time.

Why wouldn't you cast guidance for climbing a rope? Because you don't roll an ability check for climbing a rope. Unless the rope is covered in grease, you should never roll to climb a rope. Rolling to climb is for extreme climbing situations only.

Why wouldn't you cast guidance to swim across a body of water? Because unless it is a rapid current, you never need to roll a check to swim. IF you are trying to swim across a lake whipped up by a storm, with serious waves, then you roll. If it is just a lake, you don't roll.

And this puts it into a bit of context. You might not pray to the gods to help you climb a rope, but you may most certainly pray to them to climb a slick, ice-covered cliff while storm winds rage around you. Part of guidance spam could also be the tendency we as DMs have to call out the dice more often than we should. Climbing a rope or a wall shouldn't be a check, unless you want the check to be that they are climbing it at a greatly increased speed.

Sure, there are checks where guidance won't or can't come up. Stealth is a common one, certain checks that happen in combat or our simultaneous. Yet there are MANY MANY MANY checks that are easy to get all guidance all the time on with a little bit of creative play....and yes fictionally its quite silly. So the idea of altering the mechanics so that Dms don't have to add in those little narrative fixes I am all for.

It is a little silly, but also, I know religious people who do pray to God every time they do anything they might not succeed on, but feel is important.

I've seen a little guidance spam, but the most common time to see it is when the rolls feel the most important, which is also exactly when it makes the most narrative sense to ask the Gods for aid.