# Guidance Cleric cantrip is really dumb



## ArtaSoral (Mar 25, 2018)

I'm getting really frustrated with the Cleric cantrip Guidance and I'm wondering what your guys thoughts on it are.

For those who don't know Guidance is a Cleric cantrip with a casting time of one action (concentration 1 minute) that works as follows: You touch one willing creature. Once before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to one ability check of its choice. It can roll the die before or after making the ability check. The spell then ends.

Practically speaking, this means that whenever any member of the party is making any sort of check out of combat the cleric can, and strategically should, cast guidance on them. 

The community “solution” seems to be either: 


the DM should basically force there to be none, or minimal, non-time sensitive checks to force the cleric not to waste his action casting guidance or
Up the DC of checks appropriately
 
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.

But it gets even worse. Often, the party will be in a (out of combat) situation where several different characters will want to use their skills to do something. The thief wants to try to pick the lock on a chest while the ranger sweeps the room for traps and the wizard starts to translate the strange glyphs on the walls. Instead of everyone going about and doing their thing, everyone has to wait for the cleric to come over and give each of them guidance. 

And even when it’s not happening all at the same time we have some ridiculous looking situations. The Bard wants to have a conversation with an NPC and try and convince them of something? Hold on, the cleric’s got to be there! Oh, the Fighter is trying to size up different weapons at the shop? Gotta have the priest with ya. Barbarian having a drinking contest? Make sure the clerics on hand; not for the recovery of course, but for the initial drink.

I’ve been told if it bothers me so much I should just ban it from use in those kind of situations, but I really hate taking away player autonomy and contradicting the PHB. Thoughts?
P.S: All this stuff also applies to the help action, although at least there most DM’s I know (and I do this) require an explanation of how they are helping so it at least makes sense; guidance obviously cannot have the same requirement.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 25, 2018)

What's worse, player autonomy or all the Guidance spells?  If you need one or the other, then just choose one or the other.

Or your other option is to actually use role play and inform the cleric that Guidance only works when the deity that the cleric worships actually supports the actions the Cleric is trying to guide. So the deity of a War cleric won't guide a cease-fire negotiation, and a trickery cleric won't guide an Insight check.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 25, 2018)

Well, to me its just not a problem. 

Clerics can provide guidance... So what? Great for them.

I have baseline standard dc in,my game based on dmg rec for 10-20 plus resources, so i dont "adjust" DC to offset guidance any more than i "adjust" AC in case they use Bless or save DC in case they get... You get the picture?

Honestly, if the cleric were given a class ability which said "blessed boon" which let one character per turn roll 1d4 extra on skill checks... My bet is it would not be lighting up the boards as the game breaking gm angering godzilla of features...

But hey, as a cantrip, its "wrong"?

Characters being able to work together is a good thing imo... 

In my games at least.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Mar 25, 2018)

Just don't make the cleric say that he casts guidance. Unless he's doing something else, just assume that he does unless you or the cleric says otherwise.

You could make it even less obtrusive and subtract 1d4 from the DC.

If time doesn't matter, then quietly assuming that they take their actions sequentially and things take 30 seconds instead of 6 is fine... just make sure that you occasionally point out that they're taking the extra time, so when they get caught out by it (because reinforcements took 30 seconds to arrive, for instance), they can't complain and say "but we did those things at the same time".

Finally, any time that a third party is present, casting spells is probably not ok. While it's true that that specific spell isn't directly harmful, casting a spell is pretty much the same as brandishing a large knife. Even if you're not stabbing someone with it, it's going to make people nervous. Most people won't like the effect that it has on social interactions. Just for general safety's sake, it's a bad idea. You might get a pass if you're obviously using it as a tool... but even then, you don't do that sort of thing in someone else's shop, or home, or ballroom etc. Nobody will accept that you were brandishing a knife in the monarch's chamber in a harmless fashion. etc.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 25, 2018)

"I'm getting really frustrated with the Cleric cantrip Guidance and I'm wondering what your guys thoughts on it are."

My thoughts are that ifa d4 to skill checks is "really frustrating" a gm, i pray for them at tiets 2 3 etc.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 26, 2018)

ArtaSoral said:


> I’ve been told if it bothers me so much I should just ban it from use in those kind of situations, but I really hate taking away player autonomy and contradicting the PHB. Thoughts?



I would not want to let myself in for a lot of debate on "is _guidance_ usable in this situation or not?" If I felt it was a problem in a game I was running, I would simply ban the spell altogether.

I avoid complex house rules whenever I can. "Such-and-such is banned" is about the simplest house rule there is. If my players get upset, then we can work together on a solution. Usually, though, I find the players just shrug and take something else, and that's that.


----------



## ArtaSoral (Mar 26, 2018)

Alright for most of the responses (which don't get me wrong I appreciate the feedback) I'm guessing I either didn't explain myself very well or made it too long so you guys didn't read it (looking at you 5ekyu.) My issue is not the 1d4 or the DC. I have NO issue with the BALANCE of the spell. My issue is purely flavor/description in nature (probably poor wording but original post hopefully explains it a bit better.) As for the limiting the cantrips use suggestions, perhaps my standards are untenable or foolish but as I said in the PS I don't like weakening my PC's in direct contradiction to the PHB.


----------



## Dave Goff (Mar 26, 2018)

I personally don't like the unlimited cantrip idea, not even for any of the cantrips. I don't really think limiting it to a good yet manageable number is totally reasonable. We generally have house-ruled 8 cantrips/day or 6+spell modifer and that's almost always plenty. Just the _thought_ of it being limited makes the casters want to be more judicious or find more interesting ways of doing things.

Also, I agree with the idea other people would likely notice the verbal adn somatic portions of the spell and not react kindly to it, which not only provides a situational limitation also adds to the role-playing atmosphere.

Without trying to be spammy, I'd like to point to the post I made about 
the Guidance cantrip here.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 26, 2018)

Welcome to D&D divine magic.  A couple of suggestions
1. For clerics, treat Guidance as a blessing and only allow to work on an ability check or specific skill /tool proficiency related to the cleric's deity's domain.
2. For Druid's treat it as summoning a Guiding spirit. Limit the benefit to Intelligence (Arcane, History, Nature), and Wisdom (Medicine) checks and the benefit only applying to the Druid. Perhaps, even increase the casting time to a short rest to reflect the Druid needing to enter a trance to summon an ancestral or totem spirit that has to seek out another spirit for insight into the problem.  This would reflect how shamans in many cultures enter a meditative ritual trance to contact their spirit guide for insight on knowledge or treating a specific illness and, if the guide does not have an answer,  it seeks out other spirits for advice
 Actually, for Druids, I have been considering removing guidance from their spell list and making a Guiding Spirit  ability at level one and, at level two, giving the druid a turn spirit ability. I just have not worked out how to balance these abilities).


----------



## MarkB (Mar 26, 2018)

Why would you increase skill check DCs? The whole point of the spell is to give players a higher chance of success at skill checks. If they're passing checks more easily, it's working as intended.

In terms of the spell's logistics, I agree that it can get awkward. Players don't want to be reminded "don't forget your extra 1d4" every time they roll, and the DM doesn't want the narrative broken by someone piping up "and I cast Guidance on him" every time he describes how a character's actions play out. On the other hand, the player with the cantrip doesn't want his ability to assist his companions to go to waste.

If the DM's happy to keep track of it, he could treat it as effectively a passive "aura" effect, letting characters benefit from it automatically if circumstances would allow for it, maybe even switching it from 1d4 to a fixed value of 2 or 3. Or the player could institute a non-verbal reminder, such as holding up a card saying "Guidance +1d4" when he uses the cantrip, or acting out the hand gestures of his deity's blessing, so as not to talk over other players.


----------



## jgsugden (Mar 26, 2018)

Make it more fun. Ask the player casting the spell to state the guidance the spell is providing, and then work it into how the ability check plays out. They might be trying tofind the perfect advice or might say something odd.

From a balance perspectivve it is no problem at all.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 26, 2018)

So I have a tome warlock scout with Guidance. I find, I don't cast it all the time on everyone. For example, If the party rogue is going to check a door for traps, I am proficient as well, I cast guidance and provide the help action HOWEVER the fighter watching our back while we do this does not and the wizard investigating the room does not. If I am guarding the back I might cast it on the rogue but I will not provide the help action as I am busy. 

I would suggest this is a player issue to discuses with the cleric. It doesn't make since for him to cast guidance on EVERYTHING. Cast it on the primary known issue the cleric wants to support but then let the group do there things. 2 reasons for this, First, if the result of casting guidance on everything is that all DCs raise it is not longer useful it just hold back the group and actually lowers the odds because you have to roll well on 2 dice instead of one. Secondly, not only does it trivialize action but trivial actions are also made unreasonably important. If a mage investigates for secrets in every room with no expectation of finding anything why does he wait for the cleric and why does the cleric think its so important to cast this spell? I would bring this up to the players. Why are you waiting for the cleric? Do you have reason to believe there is something here you need to find or area you just killing time and checking for good measure? If you have someone doing something dangerous and someone calmly looking around the room it makes since that the cleric would aid in removing damager which usually means casting guidance on the rogue for checking for and disarming traps on doors/chests which is a common danger or the rear guard watching the back. 

If players don't head this advice and continue to guidance every test, have patrols stealth in from behind regularly and make the role without guidance because the cleric can only cast it on one at a time since it is concentration. As a result they are forced to consider what is more important, their safety or looking for loot? Also, for conversation checks, if they cast it in the room have guards and staff go on alert when they start casting the verbal and semantic parts of the spell. "Oh your going to charm me are you? Get out of my shop NOW! Guards escort them out our business is done." Subtle spell is a sorcerer ability casting spells is a very noticeable act for any other class or subtle spell would be almost pointless (short being silenced or having your hands tied). Also, make them wait for more than 10 minutes in a guarded area while the shop owner comes out to deal with them. Magic shops or shops with items of real value could be expected to have guards. On the other side, don't always to this so they have a chance to get away with it sometimes. Just make them choose and occasionally make it costly to chose wrongly particularly in cases where using it hurts them by getting them kicked out or possibly imprisoned. Guidance does not make the target like you like charmed or friends and all 3 only work on one person or test so the "other guard" could still arrest you and could still be your the first guards friend.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 26, 2018)

ArtaSoral said:


> I'm getting really frustrated with the Cleric cantrip Guidance and I'm wondering what your guys thoughts on it are.
> 
> For those who don't know Guidance is a Cleric cantrip with a casting time of one action (concentration 1 minute) that works as follows: You touch one willing creature. Once before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to one ability check of its choice. It can roll the die before or after making the ability check. The spell then ends.
> 
> ...




Guidance is an out-of-combat spell. Because in-combat you wouldn't spend an action to add 1d4 to someone's ability check. If you were willing to spend an action for that, you'd spend it instead using the Help action which would given them advantage on the check, which is worth more than 1d4.

So given it's an out-of-combat thing, there is no real time constraint. 6 seconds to mumble a prayer to your deity is pretty meaningless in terms of time. Nor is the 1d4 game-breaking for DCs.

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.  

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.


----------



## iserith (Mar 26, 2018)

First, it might be worth examining whether you're asking for too many checks. If you are calling for a check for just about anything that sounds like it might line up with a proficiency or your players are asking to make checks (as is very common) or just making them unprompted, it may be that theses approaches are encouraging the players to want to increase their chances of success on the ability check by the few means they have to do that. This may be especially true if nothing happens on a failed check or if the stakes are really high. The problem is not the players here. It's a perfectly rational behavior in that kind of environment in my view. If you contrast that with a game where the DM more or less balances ruling success (or failure) against calling for checks, plus the players do not seek to make ability checks (and perhaps seek to avoid them as much as possible), then players know that they have a chance to succeed without rolling and thus they may feel the need for guidance is reduced. 

Next, on the "help action" issue, remember that Help action is for combat only. "Working together" is what you do outside of combat and that comes with some requirements. See Basic Rules, page 59. Specifically, a character can only help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. As well, the character only gets a benefit if it actually makes sense that two or more people working on the same task could actually be productive. So while this doesn't get rid of "working together" altogether, it may diminish it some.

Finally, if you really wanted to go the route of limiting the spell in some way, you could just say that guidance only works on tasks reasonably related to the cleric's domain. Anyone trying to recall lore about something could receive guidance from cleric of a god of knowledge. Someone trying to bluff or pick a lock might find some truth in the guidance of a god of the trickster domain. The issue with this method, other than requiring your players' buy-in on the limitation, is that you're going to have to make more judgment calls on edge cases. If I were to go this route, I'd just tell my players what I had in mind and let them make the call as to whether the task fell into the scope of the deity's domain on the assumption they will act in good faith.

But before you go that last route, I would seriously examine how I run the game, especially as it pertains to how the players describe what they want to do and how the DM adjudicates. I'd make changes here, if necessary, before tinkering with the rules.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 26, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Guidance is an out-of-combat spell. Because in-combat you wouldn't spend an action to add 1d4 to someone's ability check. If you were willing to spend an action for that, you'd spend it instead using the Help action which would given them advantage on the check, which is worth more than 1d4.
> 
> So given it's an out-of-combat thing, there is no real time constraint. 6 seconds to mumble a prayer to your deity is pretty meaningless in terms of time. Nor is the 1d4 game-breaking for DCs.
> 
> ...




I find in practice it is actually emersion breaking and disruptive to the game if spammed on every check. While it is not balance breaking even if subliminal spamming it might cause the GM to raise the DCs of things 1-2 which as a result can nullify the spell or even twist the spell into a penalty instead of boon. Rolling a 1 then becomes a loss and every skill test without it becomes effective at a -2 which means if players separate then one team is hurt by it. The solution if convincing players one way or another to focus on what they think is appropriate and targetable instead of spamming everything. AS I listed above there are a few ways to approach this. Then your cleric doesn't have to be evolved in everything, you don't have "I cast guidance" every other sentence in checking out every room, and since the majority of DCs are rolled normally then the GM is more likely to let the spell do its job with out "escalating" to keep the difficulty up. Some GMs don't escalate but the I have never had a GM that wants to have one spell interrupt the game continuously and cause all the other players to huddle and wait for one player at all times.


----------



## Shiroiken (Mar 26, 2018)

As a player, I generally don't spam the spell for everyone. I will constantly cast is on myself when in a dangerous area, which for immersion purposes is me muttering prayers for protection from my deity (think of Catholics saying "hail mary" over and over again). The DM just assumes I have it up, unless I have another concentration spell going (which can be pretty common as a Druid). If an obvious check is eminent, and I have the time, I will offer a prayer to the player (disarming a trap, swimming a rapids, climbing a sheer wall, etc). It's nearly worthless in social situation, since you don't know when the roll will happen, and I assume that most NPCs won't take well to me casting a spell in front of them.

As a DM, I have no real immersion issues with it, even if a player is spamming the crap out of it. Of course, I use checks slightly differently than most (I call for them only when I absolutely have to, and only when it's too late to change anything... I also don't allow rechecks). Players may try to spam guidance, but I seldom bother with menial rolls, so they just waste time and look foolish. Because of this my players have pretty much only bother on things that look super obvious (or the caster, whom I just assume is always using it unless stated otherwise). Oh, and NPCs will always assume the worst if you cast a spell in front them... especially if they know it's to help you socially.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 26, 2018)

ArtaSoral

As i said to me having players characters work together in 5e to solve out of combat problems - help/guidance etc - is to me a plus, not a frustration.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 26, 2018)

ClaytonCross said:


> I find in practice it is actually emersion breaking and disruptive to the game if spammed on every check. While it is not balance breaking even if subliminal spamming it might cause the GM to raise the DCs of things 1-2 which as a result can nullify the spell or even twist the spell into a penalty instead of boon. Rolling a 1 then becomes a loss and every skill test without it becomes effective at a -2 which means if players separate then one team is hurt by it. The solution if convincing players one way or another to focus on what they think is appropriate and targetable instead of spamming everything. AS I listed above there are a few ways to approach this. Then your cleric doesn't have to be evolved in everything, you don't have "I cast guidance" every other sentence in checking out every room, and since the majority of DCs are rolled normally then the GM is more likely to let the spell do its job with out "escalating" to keep the difficulty up. Some GMs don't escalate but the I have never had a GM that wants to have one spell interrupt the game continuously and cause all the other players to huddle and wait for one player at all times.




It's kinda like you didn't read the post you replied to.

Nobody spammed anything, ever, in what I suggested. Nor did the cleric's player ever say anything, ever. 

I am fine if you don't like the solution I proposed...but you don't seem to have any comment on what I proposed and just repeated your post again and vaguely tried to relate it to mine as if they were somehow connected?


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 26, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> It's kinda like you didn't read the post you replied to.
> 
> Nobody spammed anything, ever, in what I suggested. Nor did the cleric's player ever say anything, ever.
> 
> I am fine if you don't like the solution I proposed...but you don't seem to have any comment on what I proposed and just repeated your post again and vaguely tried to relate it to mine as if they were somehow connected?




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.


----------



## the_redbeard (Mar 26, 2018)

ArtaSoral said:


> But it gets even worse. Often, the party will be in a (out of combat) situation where several different characters will want to use their skills to do something. The thief wants to try to pick the lock on a chest while the ranger sweeps the room for traps and the wizard starts to translate the strange glyphs on the walls. Instead of everyone going about and doing their thing, everyone has to wait for the cleric to come over and give each of them guidance.




5e lacks what B/X and other old school systems have which are guidelines for this kind of exploratory activity - such as searching takes 1 turn (10 minutes) per 10' area.  Further, there's almost always some kind of time pressure because (varies by edition and circumstance) random encounters are checked; typically every other turn.  

For in dungeon searching, I'd recommend using some kind of explicit time required, and rule that the concentration requirement of Guidance means that the Cleric can't cast another while the first guided task is on-going.  So the party could still get +1d4 to all their checks, but they would be adding an element of risk that (I would think) would not be worth the trouble.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 26, 2018)

Guidance is one of may favourite additions in 5e. At last something for the 1st level cleric to do other than cast Cure Light Wounds.

It's also about the only way the party can pick a lock with a realistic DC before level 5.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 26, 2018)

ArtaSoral said:


> I'm getting really frustrated with the Cleric cantrip Guidance and I'm wondering what your guys thoughts on it are.
> 
> For those who don't know Guidance is a Cleric cantrip with a casting time of one action (concentration 1 minute) that works as follows: You touch one willing creature. Once before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to one ability check of its choice. It can roll the die before or after making the ability check. The spell then ends.
> 
> ...



In 5th edition, Clerics are respected members of the community, granting a small (+2.5 avg) boon to their compatriots. 

It's just a part of their class.

If you up the DCs correspondingly, you're essentially shitting all over their ability, so don't do that.

The whole point is that any atomic skill check is 2.5 steps easier in the presence of a man of the gods.

I suggest you ban the cantrip instead of allowing a player to take it, only to then negating his choice by increasing the DCs.


----------



## Coroc (Mar 26, 2018)

I lold because of your example of multiple PCs needing guidance from the cleric at the same time, but otoh there's your solution: Make the situation a Little bit time critical, say on the market the thief wants to pick some pocket, the bard (Who has his own tricks to enhance skills btw) wants to convo for some info and the fighter trades for a new sword.

Now to get some pressure: the victim of the thief is out of sight of the city watch for some seconds only, not using these seconds will give you disadvantage for the pick. The person the bard wants to interview is in an awful hurry, and several other customers are interested in the sword the fighter wants to buy, there you go, now it is a meaningful decision which action needs the most support from the priest.


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 26, 2018)

ArtaSoral said:


> Alright for most of the responses (which don't get me wrong I appreciate the feedback) I'm guessing I either didn't explain myself very well or made it too long so you guys didn't read it (looking at you 5ekyu.) My issue is not the 1d4 or the DC. I have NO issue with the BALANCE of the spell. My issue is purely flavor/description in nature (probably poor wording but original post hopefully explains it a bit better.) As for the limiting the cantrips use suggestions, perhaps my standards are untenable or foolish but as I said in the PS I don't like weakening my PC's in direct contradiction to the PHB.




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.


----------



## Uller (Mar 26, 2018)

Lots of useful things get spammed in D&D.  As a player I spam the message cantrip. The light spell gets spammed by my players.  Attack rolls.  Stealth.  Searching.  ELDRTICH BLAST...

YMMV but after the player narrates a common ability 2 or 3 times everyone gets the point.

With my message cantrip I hand the PC that is the current target a brightly colored pen to indicate he and I can talk to each other.

With guidance, after the cleric player narrates the casting of the spell a couple times so everyone gets the point of how it works, I just have the player keep a brightly colored d4 handy and have him hand it to the other players anytime he wants to cast guidance.  He doesn't have to say anything.  After it is rolled he can take it back.  For really important and hard checks I might remind them but otherwise I just let the players handle it.


----------



## Warmaster Horus (Mar 26, 2018)

I don't get bent out of shape about it.  There are some instances where I won't allow it ("You're too far away to cast it on them in the time they said they were doing the check", etc).  Since it has a V/S component it might make some social or stealth checks more nuanced because there's an obvious spell being cast or sound being made.  Nothing makes a person more suspicious when in discussion with someone else than a decked-out cleric muttering and gesticulating in the background during the conversation ... "What the hell is she doing?"


----------



## Schmoe (Mar 26, 2018)

It's amazing how many people in this thread have failed their Reading Comprehension skill checks.  Maybe they need a little Guidance...

At any rate, two of the solutions here seem workable to me.  Either replace the Guidance cantrip with a Cleric aura that grants +1d4 to skill checks (make the Cleric use a cantrip slot for it, though), or tie Guidance to the god's ethos, so that it is not blindly applicable to just everything everywhere.  I personally prefer the second solution, because I think it encourages more immersion and roleplay tied to character choices.  I think if you chose the latter solution, the very act of having to judge whether it applies to a situation would cut down on the player of the cleric attempting to spam it everywhere.

Also, there was some great advice to point out that spellcasting in social situations is generally not acceptable, as it can be a prelude to all sorts of nefarious activity.


----------



## TheSword (Mar 26, 2018)

I use a strict interpretation of the duration as has been suggested above. This allows it to be kept for moments of divine inspiration rather than a spammed spell. Anything taking longer than a minute can’t benefit from the spell.

Jumping a pit... great.
Picking a lock... great.
Identifying a spell effect... awesome
Climbing a wall... great
Calming an animal... no problems
Recalling a fact... super

Rather than

Moving stealthily through a dungeon... nope
Training an animal... no
Crafting an item... hell no
Searching a dungeon room... no way
Rigging up a trap... no chance.
Haggling with a merchant... don’t try it.

Strict duration in most cases stops it turning into a joke. 

Also don’t forget to require the Cleric to say the words “Bless you my child” every time they use the cantrip... that always makes them feel more like a cleric


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 26, 2018)

Schmoe said:


> It's amazing how many people in this thread have failed their Reading Comprehension skill checks.  Maybe they need a little Guidance...
> 
> At any rate, two of the solutions here seem workable to me.  Either replace the Guidance cantrip with a Cleric aura that grants +1d4 to skill checks (make the Cleric use a cantrip slot for it, though), or tie Guidance to the god's ethos, so that it is not blindly applicable to just everything everywhere.  I personally prefer the second solution, because I think it encourages more immersion and roleplay tied to character choices.  I think if you chose the latter solution, the very act of having to judge whether it applies to a situation would cut down on the player of the cleric attempting to spam it everywhere.
> 
> Also, there was some great advice to point out that spellcasting in social situations is generally not acceptable, as it can be a prelude to all sorts of nefarious activity.



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.

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?


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 26, 2018)

My immersion is the problem, cleric insertion into scene solution... 

Change guidance to duration to up to 24 hours and concentration.

Now the cleric can be thought of as praying for you and you dont have to have them in your scene, just asking the "big buddy" to look in.

So, the cleric is not needed "in the scene" at all. Just "before the scene" and supportive.

Problem solved cuz you know, its not the d4, nope, nosirree.


----------



## iamntbatman (Mar 26, 2018)

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 (Mar 26, 2018)

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 (Mar 26, 2018)

Li Shenron said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Mar 26, 2018)

ClaytonCross said:


> 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."
> 
> ...




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 (Mar 26, 2018)

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 (Mar 26, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> 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?
> 
> ...




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


----------



## sim-h (Mar 26, 2018)

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 (Mar 26, 2018)

Schmoe said:


> 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 (Mar 26, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> 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 (Mar 26, 2018)

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"?


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 26, 2018)

Schmoe said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Reducing the frequency of the uses, limiting the cases by divine domain, *does* impact balance whether it is intended or not.

Thats the point.

If the goal is **not** to change balance and weaken the ability, "solutions" that do those things should not be preferred, not be highlighted as reducing the uses and not be put on equal footing with solutions that simply remove the disruptive effects and leave the scope alone? 

Right?

Why mess with the balance and power if the balance and power we all agree is fine as it is?


----------



## iserith (Mar 26, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> 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?




I imagine that there's a visceral reaction to it being unfair in some way - perhaps because there is no downside, trade-off, or cost - and so, lacking a good, rational explanation for why it's perceived as unfair, it's identified as an "immersion" issue. Which I always take with a grain of salt because "immersion" is one of those topics like "metagaming" where hardly anybody agrees on what it is exactly (and rarely bother to settle on a definition of it before arguing about it). Thus "_guidance_ is dumb because it breaks mah 'mersion!"

So I would lay objections to _guidance _chiefly at the feet of lacking a cost to using it all the time. However, given its duration, I think the problem rather solves itself. It works on quick tasks, but not on longer ones. The frequency of its practical use is thus reduced by some measure and the fact that it can be used in some circumstances and not in others means it has some kind of limitation which increases the odds in my view that it's seen as more fair.


----------



## Uller (Mar 26, 2018)

iserith said:


> So I would lay objections to _guidance _chiefly at the feet of lacking a cost to using it all the time. .




I would be inclined to agree.  There are lots of very useful cantrips that get over used and overcome obstacles at no real cost...like damaging cantrips that get around monster defining abilities (firebolt or acid splash vs trolls for instance). Used to be that a lowlevel party had to spend a valuable resource to defeat a troll or use sub optimal attacks.  Now just hit with a common cantrip and everyone wails on like a normal bag of hp.

My preference would be for cantrips to have some cost or limit. But they don't and I try to avoid or limit house rules...so I live with it.


----------



## iserith (Mar 26, 2018)

Uller said:


> I would be inclined to agree.  There are lots of very useful cantrips that get over used and overcome obstacles at no real cost...like damaging cantrips that get around monster defining abilities (firebolt or acid splash vs trolls for instance). Used to be that a lowlevel party had to spend a valuable resource to defeat a troll or use sub optimal attacks.  Now just hit with a common cantrip and everyone wails on like a normal bag of hp.
> 
> My preference would be for cantrips to have some cost or limit. But they don't and I try to avoid or limit house rules...so I live with it.




I very rarely have trolls in my games so this isn't so much of a problem for me, I guess. 

Although last session, I did have a troll in one scene. Only it was _different_ - fire attacks caused it to explode.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 26, 2018)

Yea. I think the guidance problem is more about players calling or expecting checks or being able to retcon guidance into the situation.  

I find it rarely used as it's nearly impossible to tell when or where a check is going to be required. Except in a few specific circumstances. 

Rogue goes to inspect / open door. Do you cast guidance on him or on the wizard in the back?  

If you cast it on the rogue assuming the door needs checked he wizard in he back may miss a very important perception check...

about the the best use in my groups for it is to keep it on a single character all the time.


----------



## Warmaster Horus (Mar 26, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Yea. I think the guidance problem is more about players calling or expecting checks or being able to retcon guidance into the situation....




If the die has been rolled, "Too late."


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 26, 2018)

Warmaster Horus said:


> If the die has been rolled, "Too late."




One step further. 

If the check has been called for. Too late


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Mar 26, 2018)

iserith said:


> ...perhaps because there is no downside, trade-off, or cost...



It's a concentration spell, so that's a downside.


----------



## iserith (Mar 26, 2018)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> It's a concentration spell, so that's a downside.




Since it's mostly cast in out-of-combat situations, it's not much of one in my view. Not that there _needs_ to be a downside. I just don't think that is much of a limitation.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Mar 26, 2018)

iserith said:


> Since it's mostly cast in out-of-combat situations, it's not much of one in my view. Not that there _needs_ to be a downside. I just don't think that is much of a limitation.



There is nothing about it being used in out-of-combat situations that stops it from being the difference between a long duration concentration spell lasting into a second encounter or not.


----------



## iserith (Mar 26, 2018)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> There is nothing about it being used in out-of-combat situations that stops it from being the difference between a long duration concentration spell lasting into a second encounter or not.




True, I've just never seen that come up. It seems like mostly a non-concern to me.


----------



## Quartz (Mar 26, 2018)

ArtaSoral said:


> I'm getting really frustrated with the Cleric cantrip Guidance and I'm wondering what your guys thoughts on it are.




If the task isn't advancing the deity's goals, a response of "YOU DO NOT NEED MY HELP." or "STAND ON YOUR OWN TWO FEET." is entirely appropriate.


----------



## Uller (Mar 26, 2018)

sim-h said:


> 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.



Do you do this with all PC abilities?  When the monk spams flurry of blows do they have to act out an attack routine?  If the bard uses bardic inspiration do they have to recite charge of the light brigade?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 26, 2018)

Uller said:


> Do you do this with all PC abilities?  When the monk spams flurry of blows do they have to act out an attack routine?  If the bard uses bardic inspiration do they have to recite charge of the light brigade?




I'm all for acting out stuff as long as I also get to shoot a real crossbow and swing a great sword around in your kitchen...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2018)

ArtaSoral said:


> And even when it’s not happening all at the same time we have some ridiculous looking situations. The Bard wants to have a conversation with an NPC and try and convince them of something? Hold on, the cleric’s got to be there!



 IMHO, the Bard has it coming for that 3.x "Inspire Confidence" routine.


----------



## mrpopstar (Mar 26, 2018)

ArtaSoral said:


> I'm getting really frustrated with the Cleric cantrip Guidance and I'm wondering what your guys thoughts on it are.
> 
> For those who don't know Guidance is a Cleric cantrip with a casting time of one action (concentration 1 minute) that works as follows: You touch one willing creature. Once before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to one ability check of its choice. It can roll the die before or after making the ability check. The spell then ends.
> 
> ...



I can see and understand how _guidance_ might be immersion-challenging.

Given the duration of the spell, it is only applicable in situations where the target is able to complete their task within one minute. Most social interactions take much longer than a minute, and most adventuring activities (those undertaken while traveling and exploring) do as well. This immediately solves the room-sweeping ranger, glyph-translating wizard, NPC-convincing bard, and equipment-comparing fighter scenarios described above.

The effects are intended for high stakes situations where an audible prayer and the laying on of hands is appropriate. Try and ask your players to push their thinking in that direction.


----------



## hbarsquared (Mar 26, 2018)

This seems like a non-issue to me, balance-wise and rp-wise.

 [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] said it - the Help action grants another player advantage, which is usually better than +1d4.  This doesn't break the game just because it might be underutilized by players.  I don't see how saying "I cast _guidance_" affects the immersion/feel of the game any more so then saying "I Help."


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 26, 2018)

If the task is challenging, you would expect to have three party members involved. One is the principal, another is helping, and another casting Guidance. Which is as things should be in a team game.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2018)

Schmoe said:


> Sod off.




Really not appropriate. Don't post in this thread again, please.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 26, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> One step further.
> 
> If the check has been called for. Too late




This is one thing I was gonna suggest to the OP - don't let Guidance apply if it's cast after the check is called for. I'm not sure if it will actually help though, because it might just lead the cleric to casting it even more,  "just to be sure."


----------



## MarkB (Mar 26, 2018)

Quartz said:


> If the task isn't advancing the deity's goals, a response of "YOU DO NOT NEED MY HELP." or "STAND ON YOUR OWN TWO FEET." is entirely appropriate.




That's really campaign-dependent. In many campaigns, deities simply wouldn't have that level of individual awareness and micromanagement of their followers, let alone their followers' associates.


----------



## mrpopstar (Mar 26, 2018)

hbarsquared said:


> This seems like a non-issue to me, balance-wise and rp-wise.
> 
> [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] said it - the Help action grants another player advantage, which is usually better than +1d4.  This doesn't break the game just because it might be underutilized by players.  I don't see how saying "I cast _guidance_" affects the immersion/feel of the game any more so then saying "I Help."



Numbers and adjudication aside, "I help" and "I cast _guidance_" are very different approaches to shaping the narrative.

Is it really that much of a stretch to consider how one or the other might affect the immersion/feel of the game given context?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2018)

hbarsquared said:


> I don't see how saying "I cast _guidance_" affects the immersion/feel of the game any more so then saying "I Help."



 Y'know, it could be the Touch range as much as anything that crosses the line.  

A cleric praying for you when you do something difficult or dangerous shouldn't seem out of place.


----------



## Uller (Mar 26, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> This is one thing I was gonna suggest to the OP - don't let Guidance apply if it's cast after the check is called for. I'm not sure if it will actually help though, because it might just lead the cleric to casting it even more,  "just to be sure."



So it will be less "immersion breaking" for the cleric to interrupt with "I cast guidance!" or "may the light of Wohoshivitz guide you!" everytime another player is declaring an action?

That seems like it would be decidedly worse.


----------



## iserith (Mar 26, 2018)

mrpopstar said:


> Numbers and adjudication aside, "I help" and "I cast _guidance_" are very different approaches to shaping the narrative.
> 
> Is it really that much of a stretch to consider how one or the other might affect the immersion/feel of the game given context?




Personally, I consider all claims of "immersion breaking" to be invalid until the person making the claim defines what he or she means by "immersion." Because if you ask 10 different people what they mean by that, it's likely there will be a number of different answers. Often I find objections to something based on "immersion!" are really something other than that.


----------



## Uller (Mar 26, 2018)

iserith said:


> Personally, I consider all claims of "immersion breaking" to be invalid until the person making the claim defines what he or she means by "immersion." Because if you ask 10 different people what they mean by that, it's likely there will be a number of different answers. Often I find objections to something based on "immersion!" are really something other than that.



Agree.

If you are reading a fantasy novel and every other paragraph the priest character is reciting some prayer it would break emmersion.  If instead the author relates a few early instances that the chaplain is praying for his comrades and that it helps them overcome obstacles it would be eatablished with no need to revisit it very often or at all.  Likewise at a D&D table players just say "l do X" for at will, no cost abilities all the time because it's a game. 

Why single out guidance?


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 26, 2018)

Uller said:


> So it will be less "immersion breaking" for the cleric to interrupt with "I cast guidance!" or "may the light of Wohoshivitz guide you!" everytime another player is declaring an action?
> 
> That seems like it would be decidedly worse.



I thought I was clearly suggesting that it was decidedly worse.

Maybe it's because most of us here don't criticize our own advice immediately after offering a suggestion that you didn't notice me saying that "I'm not sure if it will actually help though, because it might just lead [to this lousy outcome]"


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 26, 2018)

MarkB said:


> 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?




Let's not base it on a whim then. Let's say that all lock picking checks takes 2 minutes at least, and so Guidance doesn't help with them OR that they all take 30 seconds and thus Guidance helps.

Maybe lockpicking is too much arbitrary and makes for a bad example. 

Other skills are easier to estimate naturally how long they take. Climbing time depends mostly on height, stealth depends roughly on distance covered etc. Social conversations usually takes minutes at least. It's not about "whim".


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 26, 2018)

Uller said:


> Agree.
> 
> If you are reading a fantasy novel and every other paragraph the priest character is reciting some prayer it would break emmersion.  If instead the author relates a few early instances that the chaplain is praying for his comrades and that it helps them overcome obstacles it would be eatablished with no need to revisit it very often or at all.  Likewise at a D&D table players just say "l do X" for at will, no cost abilities all the time because it's a game.
> 
> Why single out guidance?





Even more... look at the solutions....

Restrict it to thematic divine limits... the fuss every time option IMO... So, if i read this right, a law divine Dm cull (i mean cull as in cut out part of the spell use) will not let guidance apply to the thief picking locks check... but maybe a use of nehance ability to help out is fine cuz, you know, it not about balance but about roleplaying... likewise  if the thief fails the trap check and gets hurt, the cure spells or poison cleanse is also fine cuz its not about balance... its about immersion.

As soon as the Gm decides that clerics have to somehow pre-justify their cantrips and up for every use based on their Gms interpretation of the appropriateness of the casting like some call your divine insurance carrier for pre-approval... my bet is thats how fast you start heading back towards "who is forced to run a cleric this campaign?"

or then again, maybe that whole "does it fit you god to cast this" is only an immersion and frustration thing for... one cantrip?????

of course it could be fun... "you worship a cleric of war so... nope, warmonger not gonna let you get better results on your persuasion check to make peace cuz hey, you oughta just kill them instead and BTW nope, the hold person not gonna fly against their big bad wardog guy cuz you should be fighting him, not freezing him."

Could be especially fun if you choose to worship a fertility god - all spells limited to only those roles would make for very interesting roleplaying options.


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 26, 2018)

iserith said:


> Personally, I consider all claims of "immersion breaking" to be invalid until the person making the claim defines what he or she means by "immersion." Because if you ask 10 different people what they mean by that, it's likely there will be a number of different answers. Often I find objections to something based on "immersion!" are really something other than that.




It doesn't really matter what 10 other people say... the OP says that it bothers HIM, and that's why he started the thread asking for help.

So if you want to help, make your suggestions. 

What are you going to achieve instead by saying that the OP's discomfort is invalid?


----------



## Quickleaf (Mar 26, 2018)

ArtaSoral said:


> I'm getting really frustrated with the Cleric cantrip Guidance and I'm wondering what your guys thoughts on it are.
> 
> For those who don't know Guidance is a Cleric cantrip with a casting time of one action (concentration 1 minute) that works as follows: You touch one willing creature. Once before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to one ability check of its choice. It can roll the die before or after making the ability check. The spell then ends.
> 
> ...




Player autonomy is great...until your player go out of control.

To enjoy a satisfying story experience (which isn't important to all groups/players, mind you), it's sometimes necessary for players to exercise self-restraint (and for the DM, similarly, to let players beat villains prematurely & other muck with his/her "plans"). It's just part of the social contract of gaming.

I'd pow-wow with the cleric player, and express yourself: "I'm having trouble with what _guidance_ is doing narratively in such-and-such a way. I'd like to see you reign in your use of _guidance_ because it's disruptive right now. Perhaps reserving it for moments that fit your PC thematically & you can offer a bit of role-play to support, rather than just saying "I cast guidance" ad infinitum. If this doesn't work for you, you could swap out _guidance_ for another cantrip. Sometimes, we all need to rein ourselves in from what the rules say is possible, me as DM included."


----------



## iserith (Mar 26, 2018)

Li Shenron said:


> It doesn't really matter what 10 other people say... the OP says that it bothers HIM, and that's why he started the thread asking for help.
> 
> So if you want to help, make your suggestions.
> 
> What are you going to achieve instead by saying that the OP's discomfort is invalid?




First, I _did_ make my suggestions.

Second, I _didn't_ discount the OP's discomfort, only the label that was used as a reason for the discomfort.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 26, 2018)

Li Shenron said:


> It doesn't really matter what 10 other people say... the OP says that it bothers HIM, and that's why he started the thread asking for help.
> 
> So if you want to help, make your suggestions.
> 
> What are you going to achieve instead by saying that the OP's discomfort is invalid?



Actually, changing piv instead of changing rules or play can help avoid problems. 

I have found, in life and in game, when someone complains getting them to look at it from a step back can help get to the "problem" in different ways and often avoid the double down yeah-feel-your-pain fixes.

This is especially true if your "problem" is at its core "what others are doing."

Lets give an example...

Lets say IN MY GAMES i added the Guidance pre-approval Angel-insurance thingy as an immersive fix that has nothing at all nosirree to do with balance.

Lets say from that i tell a cleric of Altoid the White they cannot cast Guidance to help detect or disarm traps cuz you know *I the GM* have decided AtW does not like that today.

Thief fails checks, four folks get blasted... Fire thingy

Now the AtW cleric wants to heal... I say ok.

Room later they see similar signs... I still say "AtW says no Guidance" 

Now they instead ask for some protection spells from the cleric or enhance ability and i say yes cuz it was only Guidance that needed immersion proofing...

I can guarantee you that in my game and in more than a few others the so-called immersive gains are DOA due to the obvious gross illogic and inconsistency.

Showing a GM to look at it differently rather than just reinforce their impression can help avoid problems.

My suggestion was to boost the duration with concentration so that the cleric can portray it as a prayer for blessing and yet not get into the scene itself. At least an hour means no more immersion breaking last minute interrupto cleric.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 27, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> 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?




1. You said it is not about spam.. but the OP did in the paragraph I quoted. 

2. Then you addressed spamming by making the spell an aura which spams the whole party worsening 2 of the OPs 3 issues to resolve the 1 of vocal spamming by making it automatic to all in the area.  

(I like to explain thoroughly so I do over explain. its a problem. That said I did read you post and the OPs post and both previous replies address your post in the contest of its relevance to the OPs post.)


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 27, 2018)

ClaytonCross said:


> 1. You said it is not about spam.. but the OP did in the paragraph I quoted.
> 
> 2. Then you addressed spamming by making the spell an aura which spams the whole party worsening 2 of the OPs 3 issues to resolve the 1 of vocal spamming by making it automatic to all in the area.
> 
> (I like to explain thoroughly so I do over explain. its a problem. That said I did read you post and the OPs post and both previous replies address your post in the contest of its relevance to the OPs post.)




The OP's stated issue wasn't the spamming of a 1d4 bonus to a skill check.

The OP's stated issue was that the cleric was all the time saying I use guidance.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 27, 2018)

ClaytonCross said:


> 1. You said it is not about spam.. but the OP did in the paragraph I quoted.




Yes. The OP said it's about spamming a spell. I addressed it in a manner which does not result in any of the problems that come from spamming. You then responded to me talking about spamming again. Given my response dealt with the spamming issues, your response didn't make sense in that respect. 



> 2. Then you addressed spamming by *making the spell an aura which spams the whole party worsening* 2 of the OPs 3 issues to resolve the 1 of vocal spamming by making it automatic to all in the area.




 Ohhhhh now I know where this communication went wrong. You think spamming means something different!

No, an aura does not spam a spell, at least not in the manner the OP is talking about or I was talking about. He meant the player SAYING IT over and over. It was taking him and his players out of the situation. A passive aura solves that issue. He's not objecting to the existence of the bonus, THAT isn't the "spamming" issue. He's fine with the players getting that +1d4 bonus. He says there are no balance issues involved with it.  He's bothered by the verbalization by the player of talking about the spell no matter what anyone does, and needing his PC to go get involved directly with everyone else's business. That's all solved by making it a passive aura. No more of the spamming issues he's referring to.  The PC need not be involved in what's going on, and the player need say nothing when it's happening, which means all those issues go away.

He does not appear to care about spreading that bonus literally to everyone all the time...those are not the spamming issues he's raising.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 27, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Yes. The OP said it's about spamming a spell. I addressed it in a manner which does not result in any of the problems that come from spamming. You then responded to me talking about spamming again. Given my response dealt with the spamming issues, your response didn't make sense in that respect.






Mistwell said:


> omitted...
> Nobody spammed anything, ever, in what I suggested. Nor did the cleric's player ever say anything, ever.
> ...omited




You contradict yourself. 



Mistwell said:


> LOL Ohhhhh now I know where this communication went wrong. You think spamming means something different!
> 
> No, an aura does not spam a spell, at least not in the manner the OP is talking about or I was talking about. He meant the player SAYING IT over and over. It was taking him and his players out of the situation. A passive aura solves that issue. He's not objecting to the existence of the bonus, THAT isn't the "spamming" issue. He's fine with the players getting that +1d4 bonus. He says there are no balance issues involved with it.  He's bothered by the verbalization by the player of talking about the spell no matter what anyone does, and needing his PC to go get involved directly with everyone else's business. That's all solved by making it a passive aura. No more of the spamming issues he's referring to.  The PC need not be involved in what's going on, and the player need say nothing when it's happening, which means all those issues go away.
> 
> He does not appear to care about spreading that bonus literally to everyone all the time...those are not the spamming issues he's raising.




From the dictionary:
spam
spam/
verb
gerund or present participle: spamming
*send the same message indiscriminately to (a large number of Internet users)*.

An aura is spamming. It indiscriminately sends the benefit to all players at once. 

The OP had 3 issues

1. Vocal spamming (which you address)


ArtaSoral said:


> Now, anytime anytime anyone tries to do anything the cleric pipes up saying, “and I cast guidance!"




2. Cleric involvement in all checks at all times by spamming into every check even unimportant ones. 


ArtaSoral said:


> 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.






ArtaSoral said:


> But it gets even worse. Often, the party will be in a (out of combat) situation where several different characters will want to use their skills to do something. The thief wants to try to pick the lock on a chest while the ranger sweeps the room for traps and the wizard starts to translate the strange glyphs on the walls. Instead of everyone going about and doing their thing, everyone has to wait for the cleric to come over and give each of them guidance.
> 
> And even when it’s not happening all at the same time we have some ridiculous looking situations. The Bard wants to have a conversation with an NPC and try and convince them of something? Hold on, the cleric’s got to be there! Oh, the Fighter is trying to size up different weapons at the shop? Gotta have the priest with ya. Barbarian having a drinking contest? Make sure the clerics on hand; not for the recovery of course, but for the initial drink.




To which your reply with:


Mistwell said:


> 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.
> 
> Now there is no distraction. And it doesn't harm immersion




But that is not true, Wait the cleric is not here we need him to come over her so we can get guidance since he was standing by the rogue 60ft away. The aura amounts to still waiting for the Cleric spam for every action. You just cut out the "I cast guidance" and changed it to "Move to player X so he is in range of guidance". This in many games is worse than "I cast guidance!" because the Cleric announces he casts the spell and players can assume he moved in range to do so, but now you have introduced having to track the players location at all times to see if your already in range or not while he is "guiding" someone else. Which is likely to stem more conversations or require a map when not normally necessary which will slow down the game.

3. Escalating DC due to spamming on every test



ArtaSoral said:


> The community “solution” seems to be either:
> 
> 
> the DM should basically force there to be none, or minimal, non-time sensitive checks to force the cleric not to waste his action casting guidance or
> ...




So this is again not about the technical aspect of spell but the over use of it due to spamming EVERY LITTLE TEST, there is no such thing as trivial any more. Every assumes every test is so important that it needs the cleric at all times. So as a result there is no point in low DC tests since they will always be +1d4. As a result most GMs will +1 or +2 to tests so trivial tests will fail once in a while. This breaks immersion because why does players wait for the Cleric when they don't suspect any thing? Well they do it because of habit, Partly trained be the GM, and Partly by the overly helpfull Spamming Cleric.

I would also say *you introduce a 4th issue* with an Aura. Guidance is concentration to prevent it from affecting multiple tests at once as a CANTRIP. Without that limitation it now stacks with Bless so ... just give the whole party +1d4 on every roll at all times... If a GM called for a players to make a stealth and perception test at the same time to spot and hide from a up coming patrol for example, the target of guidance would normally have to choose one of he 2 checks. Your aura eliminates that making the cantrip guidance as powerful or more powerful than the first level spell Bless with effects saves and attack roles instead of skill checks.... 

Your now allowing a rogue to have a +1d4 to spot a trap, disarm a trap, and save from a failed attempt from a trap all at the same time from one player..... That's not going to decrease Cleric's spam, Cleric's​ involvement in all checks, and the party waiting for the Cleric to get in range before they do anything.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 27, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> The OP's stated issue wasn't the spamming of a 1d4 bonus to a skill check.
> 
> The OP's stated issue was that the cleric was all the time saying I use guidance.




So this is misunderstanding caused by Mistwell's requirement to reduce my posts to 2 sentences so he can understand it. 

The OP said " 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 a*nnoying pocket cleric who is always involved in everything*, even situations that should be another character’s time to shine."

Which is more than one form of spamming. 

1. Spamming "and I cast guidance!" to break action flow and emersion because its this ever present interruption to other players turns.

2. Spamming the spell to every check puts the Cleric in front and center of every task. Basically every character waiting for their turn to use the Cleric.

3. Spamming the spell guidance is not an issue in the 1d4 bonus mechanically of itself its the constant use of it that makes every mundane task become treated as a serious issue waiting for the clerics attention. The result of every task being a "serious issue" is that the DC gets raised. 

As Op said the common resolution is, "Up the DC of checks appropriately" to nullify its impact not of the individual use but because when its spammed it just becomes part of the "standard" calculation.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 27, 2018)

ClaytonCross said:


> As Op said the common resolution is, "Up the DC of checks appropriately" to nullify its impact not of the individual use but because when its spammed it just becomes part of the "standard" calculation.




This is a shifty shifty resolution, and nobody should do it.

If your concern is one of spotlight, and not balance or difficulty; simply assume that any atomic (=non-continuous) skill check when the Cleric is present (and not busy) gets a +1d4 bonus; no actual intervention by the Cleric player needed (or wanted).

Of course, if the Cleric took the cantrip precisely because it allows her to meddle in the affairs of everybody else, allow her to freely redo the cantrip choice to pick something else. This will also mean nobody gets the bonus.

Under no circumstances is upping the DCs a good choice; all that does is hose the player's choice as well as any action taken when the Cleric _isn't _around. It's very bad DMing.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 27, 2018)

Yes its silly but you just have to buy into it I suppose. Our cleric spams it all the time for initiative checks. Its basically expertise on all skills outside combat and a bonus to initiative rolls.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 27, 2018)

The idea that it's a bonus on all skills outside of combat is very much a misinterpretation. You want to Deceive the guard to let you through the gate? The cleric casting Guidance is going to make him more suspicious, not less. Ranger searching for a path through the jungle? It takes longer than a minute, so no Guidance. Want to deliver a speech to Persuade the ruling council to support the war? takes longer than a minute, so no Guidance.

As for initiative rolls, even if you rule Guidance can effect them, most of the time combat breaks out without prior warning, and without prior warning, you can't use Guidance.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 27, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> This is a shifty shifty resolution, and nobody should do it.
> 
> If your concern is one of spotlight, and not balance or difficulty; simply assume that any atomic (=non-continuous) skill check when the Cleric is present (and not busy) gets a +1d4 bonus; no actual intervention by the Cleric player needed (or wanted).
> 
> ...




I don't disagree. I just said making it an aura that is perpetually on does not resolve the OPs concern. My take is to ask/train your players to use it on more key tests. Ask why the wizard waits for the cleric to check for secret doors when he doesn't expect them, a guard waits for the cleric when he should be looking behind them now, while the rogue is trying to disarm a trap that they know is potentially dangerous?

Request that players try to spare the guidance on trivial roles like casual searches with not exception of finding anything.
Give people on watch disadvantage on a force perception check because they are looking to see where the cleric is instead of watching their back.
Ensure traps are dangerous enough that disarming one is a concern but the spot check to disarm it can give them an Idea of its worth waiting so a simple trap would not warrant guidance every time.
Make some roles time sensitive so that the cleric has to pick one.

This may not resolve the 3 issues entirely but it should make it at least more immersive for the group and bearable for the GM. That said I am sure other GMs could improve this suggestion.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 27, 2018)

There shouldn't be skill rolls at all for trivial purposes like casual searches. Skill rolls should be for story critical events where failure is meaningful.

As for traps, they should be infrequent enough that it is always going to feel worthwhile getting clerical assistance. Lots of trivial traps = boring adventure.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 27, 2018)

You are mistaken about the ops problem with guidance.  His issue never was the 1d4 bonus. It could theoretically be on every check the pcs ever made and it still wouldn't be the problem he's talking about. 

His problem is literally the immersion/feel of the game when the cleric player constantly says incast guidance at every possible skill check. 

So you are wrong



ClaytonCross said:


> So this is misunderstanding caused by Mistwell's requirement to reduce my posts to 2 sentences so he can understand it.
> 
> The OP said " 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 a*nnoying pocket cleric who is always involved in everything*, even situations that should be another character’s time to shine."
> 
> ...


----------



## Uller (Mar 27, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> You are mistaken about the ops problem with guidance.  His issue never was the 1d4 bonus. It could theoretically be on every check the pcs ever made and it still wouldn't be the problem he's talking about.
> 
> His problem is literally the immersion/feel of the game when the cleric player constantly says incast guidance at every possible skill check.
> 
> So you are wrong



If the problem is the cleric interrupting the flow of the game on every skill check then numerous solutions have been provided.  My preferred method is just give the cleric player a brightly colored d4 and tell him to hand it to whatever player is currently under his guidance spell.  When it gets rolled the die is returned to him.  He doesn't have to say a word.  Or just make it an aura.  Or just talk to the player and ask him to cool it and let others have the spotlight.  Save guidance for when they ask for it or for really important checks...or stop calling for a check on everything...the DM should only call for meaningful checks anyway.

But if the +1d4 isnt the problem then why is his proposed solution to increase DCs?


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 27, 2018)

Uller said:


> If the problem is the cleric interrupting the flow of the game on every skill check then numerous solutions have been provided.  My preferred method is just give the cleric player a brightly colored d4 and tell him to hand it to whatever player is currently under his guidance spell.  When it gets rolled the die is returned to him.  He doesn't have to say a word.  Or just make it an aura.  Or just talk to the player and ask him to cool it and let others have the spotlight.  Save guidance for when they ask for it or for really important checks...or stop calling for a check on everything...the DM should only call for meaningful checks anyway.



That still puts the focus on the Cleric player, all the time.

A more streamlined suggestion:

Everybody gets +2 all the time, just for the Cleric being around.

This preserves the mechanical benefit, while utterly removing any impediment to speeding up play, as well as any spotlight issue.

Zapp

Ps. And if this makes the Cleric player think the cantrip is boring, and decides to pick another, then mission accomplished: now *all* issues are resolved!


----------



## Uller (Mar 27, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> That still puts the focus on the Cleric player, all the time.
> 
> A more streamlined suggestion:
> 
> ...



I disagree.  I use this solution...a player quietly handing another a die is not the same as a player interrupting another.

But I also did list the aura solution...and the solution to just talk to the player. Or for the DM to maybe modify his or her approach to skill checks so only important ones require a roll that PCs might want to work together to maximize chances of success.  

There is no one solution here.  But if the DM feels inclined to secretly ( or not secretly) buff DCs to nerf guidance he is just encouraging more use of the spell, not less.


----------



## mrpopstar (Mar 27, 2018)

iserith said:


> Personally, I consider all claims of "immersion breaking" to be invalid until the person making the claim defines what he or she means by "immersion." Because if you ask 10 different people what they mean by that, it's likely there will be a number of different answers. Often I find objections to something based on "immersion!" are really something other than that.



It never occurred to me that immersion referenced anything other than the shared act of immersing ourselves in a cooperative narrative. Contributions to the narrative that pull us out of those joyous depths are thus "immersion breaking,' but what constitutes a contribution that pulls us out is (of course) fully subjective.

For myself, the misapplication of _guidance_ would be immersion-breaking. I agreed (silently) with your thought earlier that perhaps there was an issue of calling for too many skill checks. My contribution to the conversation was a reframing of the use and applicability of _guidance_, which I anticipated would result in fewer skill checks of the sort that are causing the OP ills.


----------



## mrpopstar (Mar 27, 2018)

Uller said:


> Agree.
> 
> If you are reading a fantasy novel and every other paragraph the priest character is reciting some prayer it would break emmersion.  If instead the author relates a few early instances that the chaplain is praying for his comrades and that it helps them overcome obstacles it would be eatablished with no need to revisit it very often or at all.  Likewise at a D&D table players just say "l do X" for at will, no cost abilities all the time because it's a game.
> 
> Why single out guidance?



I don't think anyone's singling out _guidance_, I think it's more of a difference in approach. For some, an assumption of the effects of _guidance_ discards its opportunity as a narrative tool in favor of its numerical utility (which feels gamey, crunchy, and immersion-breaking). For others, its merely an obvious assumption (because duh).

It's a conversation that straddles over the great play style divide.


----------



## iserith (Mar 27, 2018)

mrpopstar said:


> It never occurred to me that immersion referenced anything other than the shared act of immersing ourselves in a cooperative narrative. Contributions to the narrative that pull us out of those joyous depths are thus "immersion breaking,' but what constitutes a contribution that pulls us out is (of course) fully subjective.
> 
> For myself, the misapplication of _guidance_ would be immersion-breaking. I agreed (silently) with your thought earlier that perhaps there was an issue of calling for too many skill checks. My contribution to the conversation was a reframing of the use and applicability of _guidance_, which I anticipated would result in fewer skill checks of the sort that are causing the OP ills.




See, I personally consider "immersion" to be emotional identification with my character and, as a DM, I don't consider "immersion" in that sense a goal when in that role. For others it might mean being solely in "actor stance" or not having mechanics get in the way. For others "breaking immersion" it might just be "you're doing something that annoys me."

So lots of potential definitions of immersion and those are just the ones I've seen bandied about. There might be others and probably are. Therefore, I don't find the term particularly explanatory without an accompanying definition. It's one of those RPG buzz words that means something different to practically everyone. If the OP can define it more clearly, it may be easier to figure out a solution.


----------



## sim-h (Mar 27, 2018)

Uller said:


> Do you do this with all PC abilities?  When the monk spams flurry of blows do they have to act out an attack routine?  If the bard uses bardic inspiration do they have to recite charge of the light brigade?




Yes! Sorry.


----------



## bmcdaniel (Mar 27, 2018)

As a DM I love the guidance cantrip precisely because it enhances immersion. Our house rule is that the cleric must actually recite a shirt prayer. Eg "Dear Pelor, please keep us safe tonight by helping us find a safe place to rest. We promise to do our best to zealously attack evil in the morning."


----------



## ArtaSoral (Mar 27, 2018)

My sincerest apologies for the lack of presence in this thread, my internet went down. I just got it back


----------



## Uller (Mar 27, 2018)

ArtaSoral said:


> My sincerest apologies for the lack of presence in this thread, my internet went down. I just got it back



I picture that scene in the movie Yellow Beard (I think it was) where the soldiers come into the tavern to find everyone dead but the blind guy who just says there was some sort of squabble...


----------



## Stormdale (Mar 27, 2018)

bmcdaniel said:


> As a DM I love the guidance cantrip precisely because it enhances immersion. Our house rule is that the cleric must actually recite a shirt prayer. Eg "Dear Pelor, please keep us safe tonight by helping us find a safe place to rest. We promise to do our best to zealously attack evil in the morning."




Same. Have just started playing for a change, we seldom have a cleric in the party so decided to play one. My pc is forever saying "May Moradin bless you" or "May Moradin guide your endevours" as he casts guidance.

I do like the idea of having a special guidance die to hand out to pcs at the same time. If still an issue I'd change the casting time to one minute and start making time more important- I do have 1e/2e style search times for the "exploration" pillar.  

Finally, this as with most things comes down to the table. if you are getting fed up, talk to your players and see what you can work out- some of the ideas suggested here may be worth considering but see what your group thinks. I for one wouldn't raise DCs jut because the cleric can lower the odds via guidance but think some sort of limits are in order, after all it is only a cantrip.

Stormdale


----------



## MarkB (Mar 27, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Yes its silly but you just have to buy into it I suppose. Our cleric spams it all the time for initiative checks. Its basically expertise on all skills outside combat and a bonus to initiative rolls.




How the hell do you use it on Initiative checks? I guess the cleric could cast it on one person just before the party kick in a door, but it's still only going to help one of them - and it means the cleric is going into combat without another concentration-based spell up-and-running. It certainly wouldn't apply if the party aren't expecting combat to kick off.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 27, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> The idea that it's a bonus on all skills outside of combat is very much a misinterpretation. You want to Deceive the guard to let you through the gate? The cleric casting Guidance is going to make him more suspicious, not less. Ranger searching for a path through the jungle? It takes longer than a minute, so no Guidance. Want to deliver a speech to Persuade the ruling council to support the war? takes longer than a minute, so no Guidance.
> 
> As for initiative rolls, even if you rule Guidance can effect them, most of the time combat breaks out without prior warning, and without prior warning, you can't use Guidance.




I don't buy it makes the guard situation worse. As for the rest, adding "any skill check which requires less than a minute to perform" is a fine add-on. You still gain all the normal benefits of the spell without the immersion drawbacks mentioned.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 27, 2018)

ClaytonCross said:


> I don't disagree. I just said making it an aura that is perpetually on does not resolve the OPs concern.




Yes, it does.

You've been presented, in rather extensive detail and with repetition at this point, why it does. You've never responded to it, and you just keep repeating that it doesn't solve the problem.


YES. IT. DOES.

If you disagree, then respond to the actual points made.  The OP had immersion issues with the spell, not balance issues. How does that proposal not address the immersion issues he had? 

I think you are still caught up on balance issues. I don't know why. The OP has no balance issues with the spell. Nor should he - the help action is even more powerful and literally any PC can do it at-will.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 27, 2018)

bmcdaniel said:


> As a DM I love the guidance cantrip precisely because it enhances immersion. Our house rule is that the cleric must actually recite *a shirt prayer*.




Oh Pelor, may the starch applied to this garment make it holy and fresh!
By the power of St. Cuthbert, may the scented bleach render this shirt smelling of lilacs!


----------



## iserith (Mar 27, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Oh Pelor, may the starch applied to this garment make it holy and fresh!
> By the power of St. Cuthbert, may the scented bleach render this shirt smelling of lilacs!




Lilacs break my immersion.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 27, 2018)

iserith said:


> Lilacs break my immersion.




How do you feel about collar stays, cufflinks, collar tips, lapel pins and tie bars?


----------



## iserith (Mar 27, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> How do you feel about collar stays, cufflinks, collar tips, lapel pins and tie bars?




Those are metagaming.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 27, 2018)

iserith said:


> Lilacs break my immersion.




The larch breaks mine.




The larch.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 27, 2018)

ClaytonCross said:


> making it an aura that is perpetually on does not resolve the OPs concern.





Mistwell said:


> YES. IT. DOES.





ArtaSoral said:


> My sincerest apologies for the lack of presence in this thread, my internet went down. I just got it back



 Just in time.


----------



## jgsugden (Mar 27, 2018)

I have an article in mind that addresses these concepts... I should finish writing it up and put it on the DM's guild.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 27, 2018)

ClaytonCross said:


> You contradict yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sorry I had not seen this reply earlier.

It's not the spamming the OP is talking about. Whether or not you want to call it a form of spamming, this isn't the one we're discussing. Move on from it. If you have an issue with this sort of spamming fair enough, but it's not the type the OP mentioned.



> The OP had 3 issues
> 
> 1. Vocal spamming (which you address)
> 
> ...




Oh come on.

You're out of combat.  There is no purpose to the issue you raised.  If the Cleric can easily come within 30', then you just assume the come within 30' without the need to role play it. This is one of those issues someone raises in a white room hypothetical which has no purpose in practice. If you need to use for example a rope to tie to something, you don't need to say I detach the rope from my backpack...you just say you use the rope. If you're rolling a d4 added to your skill check, you just use the d4 and it's assumed it's because the cleric is in 30'. As long as you're not in initiative there is no risk to the issue and therefore no reason to worry over it.  



> The aura amounts to still waiting for the Cleric spam for every action.




There are no turns. Nobody is waiting anything. You're out of initiative. You just roll the d4 and add it to your check and any competent DM will have no issue with it and nobody will need say a word to break immersion. This is a manufactured "issue".



> 3. Escalating DC due to spamming on every test




This is not the issue the OP was raised. He said he'd seen others propose it but he had no issues with the mechanics of Guidance. You think he is making an issue of it, but he's not. He doesn't care. Nor should he - the help action does even more than guidance for those sorts of issues.







> So this is again not about the technical aspect of spell but the over use of it due to spamming EVERY LITTLE TEST, there is no such thing as trivial any more.




Nope. Stop. This is not the OPs claim, it's yours. He doesn't care about the mechanical issues and "every check is non-trivial" is a mechanics response. 

Like I said earlier, YOU are stuck on the mechanical parts of it. I don't know why. If I "spammed" the help action on every little skill check, what would you do?



> I would also say *you introduce a 4th issue* with an Aura. Guidance is concentration to prevent it from affecting multiple tests at once as a CANTRIP.




Non-issue. It's only for out-of-combat and out-of-initiative. I addressed this when I raised the proposal to begin with. There are no timing issues if you're not in initiative. Nor does it stack with Bless because, of course it still does have the same limit in the spell of concentration. Nobody said anything about it not being an actual spell in-game being used, it's just the immersion issues are dealt with if you treat it AS IF it were an aura that was always on in appropriate circumstances.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 27, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> You are mistaken about the ops problem with guidance.  His issue never was the 1d4 bonus. It could theoretically be on every check the pcs ever made and it still wouldn't be the problem he's talking about.
> 
> His problem is literally the immersion/feel of the game when the cleric player constantly says incast guidance at every possible skill check.
> 
> So you are wrong




I literally Quoted the OP saying " annoying pocket cleric who is always involved in everything " ... Its not the 1d4 that is the issue its the Cleric making every trivial test his test too. The OP explained that. Spam is an issue per the OPs post. If you choose to ignore the OPs post but what you want, why do you bother to post on it? He has more than one problem here.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 27, 2018)

bmcdaniel said:


> As a DM I love the guidance cantrip precisely because it enhances immersion. Our house rule is that the cleric must actually recite a shirt prayer. Eg "Dear Pelor, please keep us safe tonight by helping us find a safe place to rest. We promise to do our best to zealously attack evil in the morning."




That's actually a good way to help the OPs issue since the player will get tired of saying prayers during a session if he is casting guidance on every 5 ft. The player will likely reduce casting it to more important checks. Better solution than I came up with and better than the counter productive aura.

I am really impressed at that solution.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 27, 2018)

ClaytonCross said:


> That's actually a good way to help the OPs issue since the player will get tired of saying prayers during a session if he is casting guidance on every 5 ft. The player will likely reduce casting it to more important checks. Better solution than I came up with and better than the counter productive aura.
> 
> I am really impressed at that solution.




Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 27, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Yes, it does.
> 
> You've been presented, in rather extensive detail and with repetition at this point, why it does. You've never responded to it, and you just keep repeating that it doesn't solve the problem.
> 
> ...




OP "annoying pocket cleric who is always involved in everything" <-- this is one of 3 issues I out lined and explained from the OPs post. Its not about the 1d4 its about waiting for the Cleric to be involved in every test spamming it for minor issues. I don't know how many times I have to answer this before you read it. Oddly, I keep answering your questions but your saying I am not though its in almost every post. So your ether not reading my posts or your mentally blocking what you don't want to talk about. Its a quote from the OP so you can't say he didn't say it. Its 1 of 3 points he makes about breaking emersion. The aura resolved 1 of the OPs 3 issues to make the other two worse. Its robbing Peter to Pay Paul and end in a negative gain due to interest.


----------



## ad_hoc (Mar 27, 2018)

I think whether Guidance is fine or a problem depends on how the table uses ability checks.

At my table ability checks only happen when they are important, the outcome is in doubt, and there are consequences. There are no trivial ability checks as that takes interrupts the flow and tension of our game.

In each scene the players are asked what their character is doing. Then time passes and checks are made if they are warranted. So if a Cleric has Guidance they have the chance to cast it for one character, bit not all of them. As it is touch and only lasts a minute it might not even be possible to use it on certain characters. The Cleric would need to.be nearby.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 28, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Sorry I had not seen this reply earlier.




No problem the thread is long, It happens to us all.



Mistwell said:


> It's not the spamming the OP is talking about. Whether or not you want to call it a form of spamming, this isn't the one we're discussing. Move on from it. If you have an issue with this sort of spamming fair enough, but it's not the type the OP mentioned.




Its not the word the OP used but I quoted the OP in saying he doesn't like the Cleric being required for every check and players waiting form him all the time. Your the one ignoring this because you are only stuck on the verbal "I cast guidance!" so instead you have traded it to "I move so that player X is in range of my guidance aura" Which doesn't help the issue the OP stated. I used the quotes from the OP. Its what he said. If your ignore the OPs statements your not being useful to the OP and why are you here?




Mistwell said:


> Oh come on.
> 
> You're out of combat.  There is no purpose to the issue you raised.  If the Cleric can easily come within 30', then you just assume the come within 30' without the need to role play it. This is one of those issues someone raises in a white room hypothetical which has no purpose in practice. If you need to use for example a rope to tie to something, you don't need to say I detach the rope from my backpack...you just say you use the rope. If you're rolling a d4 added to your skill check, you just use the d4 and it's assumed it's because the cleric is in 30'. As long as you're not in initiative there is no risk to the issue and therefore no reason to worry over it.




The issue the OP stated is the Clerics involvement in every check and interrupting players to be a part of everything. There is still a sequence of events out of combat and the Cleric can only be in one place at a time. Waiting for the cleric to perform actions in or out of combat still creates the same problem. Your aura does not fix that.



Mistwell said:


> There are no turns. Nobody is waiting anything. You're out of initiative. You just roll the d4 and add it to your check and any competent DM will have no issue with it and nobody will need say a word to break immersion. This is a manufactured "issue".




There does not have to be initiative to have players taking "turns" and have sequence of events. Player 1 is in room A doing a search, Player 2 is in room B checking a chest for traps...They can't act at the same time and the cleric "guide" them both, so now they narrate waiting and taking turns using the Cleric which is exactly what the OP said he didn't want and I quoted it many times now.  




Mistwell said:


> This is not the issue the OP was raised. He said he'd seen others propose it but he had no issues with the mechanics of Guidance. You think he is making an issue of it, but he's not. He doesn't care. Nor should he - the help action does even more than guidance for those sorts of issues.




I am not talking about the mechanics of the 1d4 I am talking about the over use of the spell on every action and listing the concerns the OP raised and I did so with quotes of the OP raising the issue. .... 




Mistwell said:


> Nope. Stop. This is not the OPs claim, it's yours. He doesn't care about the mechanical issues and "every check is non-trivial" is a mechanics response.




He is tired of the Cleric being involved in every test. As I quoted. I just restated that. Obviously if every test was life and death it shouldn't be a problem since that is what the GM is going for. If he expects players to be willing to run checks without every bonus, then some checks are trivial or at lest not so important that the Cleric needs to be involved.



Mistwell said:


> Like I said earlier, YOU are stuck on the mechanical parts of it. I don't know why. If I "spammed" the help action on every little skill check, what would you do?




I am not suck on the mechanical part, I am stuck on the OPs point of breaking immersion by having the Cleric be involved in every character test and action not letting other players "shine" by constantly steeling every other characters action as part of its own and having every character wait for the Cleric. Your stuck on the word "spam" ... its a cantrip and that is the behavior described but the issue is emersion. I am just using spamming to describe the action. You solution on address the verbal component of a 3 part issue sometimes.





Mistwell said:


> Non-issue. It's only for out-of-combat and out-of-initiative. I addressed this when I raised the proposal to begin with. There are no timing issues if you're not in initiative. Nor does it stack with Bless because, of course it still does have the same limit in the spell of concentration. Nobody said anything about it not being an actual spell in-game being used, it's just the immersion issues are dealt with if you treat it AS IF it were an aura that was always on in appropriate circumstances.




4 is total my issue and opinion. But its also evident that that the game designers gave the spell concentration as limitation which you removed. I just explained why I think that makes since. If you disagree with guidance being restricted with concentration because its "out-of-combat" your fighting the balance and design by wizards of the cost not me. I just happened to agree with them.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 28, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> I think whether Guidance is fine or a problem depends on how the table uses ability checks.
> 
> At my table ability checks only happen when they are important, the outcome is in doubt, and there are consequences. There are no trivial ability checks as that takes interrupts the flow and tension of our game.
> 
> In each scene the players are asked what their character is doing. Then time passes and checks are made if they are warranted. So if a Cleric has Guidance they have the chance to cast it for one character, bit not all of them. As it is touch and only lasts a minute it might not even be possible to use it on certain characters. The Cleric would need to.be nearby.




I 100% agree with you.  ...But... That assumes players are not metagaming, acting without outside knowledge, or your just restricting the Cleric to "pick one to help, because your all of doing your own things at the same time"

I think the issue the OP is having comes from the "you walk into a long hall way with 3 doors, one is open, what do you do?"

The Scout wants to look around the room (perception check?)
The Wizard wants to search the open room (investigation check?)
The Rogue wants to check one of the closed doors to see if its trapped and/or locked and work his way in. 

The GM wants to let them all do their things and actually has something for them all but they all wait for the Cleric to walk around casting Guidance.

So wild he doesn't mind the extra 1d4 he seems to be getting annoyed with all action waiting for the Cleric. If there are not trivial checks and they are all acting at the same time then only one should get guidance, so... they all wait for the cleric to walk around one at a time. Sure, all the checks have an important none trivial check the GM prepared... but how do the players know that? Why do they all treat every check as important without knowing they are? When the rogue finds the door is trapped, he calls for the Cleric for guidance because he now knows he is in danger but why would the rest wait? If all checks are important the *players learn to wait* because they know they would not get a role unless it was. So roll means I need guidance. *The characters don't know* and would appear to be waiting for no reason and *that breaks immersion*. That is the root of the OPs issue.

*To me (and the OP can correct me if I am wrong) but the problem the OP is laying out is that the players are meta-gaming and breaking emersion for everyone to wait for Cleric Guidance spam because they are all desperate not to fail any important check that the characters would never know is important.*


----------



## bmcdaniel (Mar 28, 2018)

ClaytonCross said:


> That's actually a good way to help the OPs issue since the player will get tired of saying prayers during a session if he is casting guidance on every 5 ft. The player will likely reduce casting it to more important checks. Better solution than I came up with and better than the counter productive aura.
> 
> I am really impressed at that solution.





Yes, it actually serves two purposes: 

(1) Enhances immersion by putting the guidance in context. It makes the cleric act correctly priestly. It makes the recipient appropriately grateful to the god, (and if they don't support the god, they will sometimes reject guidance).

(2) It also imposes a small out-of-game cost to prevent spamming the cantrip at every opportunity. The cost comes from both the need to recite the prayer, but also a feeling that it should only be used non-frivolously. A character that prays to Pelor for guidance on Con checks to avoid becoming drunk when drinking heavily, is probably going to be disappointed...


----------



## ad_hoc (Mar 28, 2018)

ClaytonCross said:


> So wild he doesn't mind the extra 1d4 he seems to be getting annoyed with all action waiting for the Cleric. If there are not trivial checks and they are all acting at the same time then only one should get guidance, so... they all wait for the cleric to walk around one at a time.




If time is not a factor then this situation is no different than the entire party waiting around and helping each other. Or taking a long rest after every combat encounter.

There need to be consequences. If there are no consequences then Guidance is the least of the problems.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 28, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> If time is not a factor then this situation is no different than the entire party waiting around and helping each other. Or taking a long rest after every combat encounter.
> 
> There need to be consequences. If there are no consequences then Guidance is the least of the problems.




I agree. I think my solution was an attempt at this by asking players to see reason but bmcdaniel's solution comes with a cost and labor to the actual cleric player while bringing the characters faith to the front to make more immersive role play. I like that especially because  in games I have played in Clerics tend to want to hand wave their deity instead of role play it so I consider it improving not only the OP's issue by giving a meta-game cost to a meta-game reaction which has the potential to break immersion AND it encourages Cleric's role play relationship to their deity. 

My solution "Talk to players and ask them to meta game less" and/or "Send two things at them at once" both have problems, being that habits are hard to break and having to come up with 2 important checks or timing enemies seems like a punishment for using the ability (which is why I listed it as a backup) and a drain on the GM. bmcdaniel's solution adds a cost that might effectively "train" players to be more spearing and meta-game less.

Anyway. That's my take on it. I would suggest that route to the OP and maybe talk to players to explain the change, its worth a shot, but will depend on the players as to how effective its. Best of luck to him though.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 28, 2018)

> The Scout wants to look around the room (perception check?)
> The Wizard wants to search the open room (investigation check?)




Neither of these warrant a skill roll. If the wizard wants to look for something in particular, like a trap on the door, then they can make a roll, but it would be a good idea for the rogue to wait until after before trying to open it.

Skill rolls aside, one of the useful life skills that can be learned from D&D is how to co-ordinate, rather than run around like headless chickens.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 28, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Neither of these warrant a skill roll. If the wizard wants to look for something in particular, like a trap on the door, then they can make a roll, but it would be a good idea for the rogue to wait until after before trying to open it.
> 
> Skill rolls aside, one of the useful life skills that can be learned from D&D is how to co-ordinate, rather than run around like headless chickens.




Every campaign I have ever played under any GM, scouting a room for anything suspicious was perception roll, it could be passive but I have never had a GM play it that way. I do use passive when I GM though so its going to depend of course. Same goes for investigating a room. I will also add that while I run passives I will let players do active searches for a chance at a higher roll for a search or perception check if they call it, where I use passive as a minimum for those 2 skills. Again just me and this is all just about a random not well thought out example to illustrate a point, so Its not really worth it to me to go on tangent about when a skill roll should be used. I am just trying to say that is the point where the OP is saying immersion is getting broken not dictate a specific type of play.

Coordination is fine but dependence can be an issue. Your rogue waiting for the cleric... good coordination, I agree. Having the cleric "guide" a room search where the player doesn't expect to find anything or having the cleric run over to "guide" a rear guard on a perception check when no one is expecting someone from behind they are just doing it for good measure is not coordination. Its meta-gaming dependence and it breaks immersion as well as belittles the players who might otherwise have a "moment to shine" as the OP put it. I would be annoyed as a GM if I asked for a roll to open a stuck door and the Cleric yelled "I cast guidance!" just as the OP is. The only reason the Cleric knows the player might need help is because I as the GM asked for a role. Now if the player tried and failed, said "can someone give me a hand here this door will not open", then a second player said I help for advantage and the Cleric said "I cast guidance!" then sure. Coordination. No issue with that or them working as a team. The issue is meta-gaming every roll with guidance. There is a time to just let a player roll. 

That's my opinion anyway.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 28, 2018)

Another solution:
Make it clear, that casting spells while speaking to others is rude at least. It is also suspicious and may instantly change the outcome of a negotiation to a fight.

And actually, just be glad that characters an more easily do things. It usually only helps the story. Just have an eye on it how other people react to such a cleric. And also ask the other characters how they feel about not doing things on their own. Why wait for a cleric to bless you with good fortune if you can do it on your own.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 28, 2018)

I think we now have a new meme for someone that is wrong and digs in about his wrongness.

"Dude you pulled a Clayton Cross"


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 28, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I think we now have a new meme for someone that is wrong and digs in about his wrongness.
> 
> "Dude you pulled a Clayton Cross"




If the OP chimes in and says I am right do we use "Dude you pulled a Fog Reaver" ?


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 28, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Another solution:
> Make it clear, that casting spells while speaking to others is rude at least. It is also suspicious and may instantly change the outcome of a negotiation to a fight.




In some places (Amn in the FR for example) casting spells is actually illegal, and would get the culprit arrested.

A Divine Soul Sorcerer might be able to slip it through with Subtle Spell, but otherwise the S and V components are obvious.


----------



## Quartz (Mar 28, 2018)

MarkB said:


> That's really campaign-dependent. In many campaigns, deities simply wouldn't have that level of individual awareness and micromanagement of their followers, let alone their followers' associates.




Agreed, but in some it is.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 29, 2018)

ClaytonCross said:


> If the OP chimes in and says I am right do we use "Dude you pulled a Fog Reaver" ?




If FrogReaver turns out to be wrong, I will say that FrogReaver pulled a Clayton Cross


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 29, 2018)

"Its meta-gaming dependence and it breaks immersion as well as belittles the players who might otherwise have a "moment to shine" as the OP put it. I would be annoyed as a GM if I asked for a roll to open a stuck door and the Cleric yelled "I cast guidance!" just as the OP is. The only reason the Cleric knows the player might need help is because I as the GM asked for a role. "

this is starting in media res to show a figment of a problem

The "roll for stuck door" would not - in my games - be the start of this. 

it would **likely** be 
"I open the door"
"The door seems stuck and won't open. Do you want to try and force it or what?" (For some Gms that might be more commonly done with a blank stare or a bland "what next?" because they see asking for trying to force the door as wrong somehow.
"yes, i will try and force the door."
"As usual i aid him with divine Guidance." (For some Gms this might be replaced with spouting some pre-written blessing off a card that the Gm requires for guidance - just like the verbal components for all others spells likely have to be spoken aloud in character by the player.)
"Ok so make the check..."
[Rolls d20+d4 plus possible advantage if others worked with him which would be unlikely on the first try barring special circumstances.
etc.

The cleric casting guidance on a skill check of others when he normally does so for most every check is not metagaming just because he makes the statement after you asked for the roll.

Its just as likely to believe he did also cast guidance every time the "skill check" was an auto-success... the key is expecting the scene to play differently when you decide it is an auto-success is actually more meta-gamey.

IMO of course.

Seems to me like the degree to which guidance is interuptive is directly related to how much issue the Gm makes of the cleric wanting to guidance whenever they can and tries to make it a *thing* instead of "routine". 

I mean, how disruptive would it be if the Gm and the players came to the conclusion that **unless noted otherwise** guidance is being used and they made the skill checks with d20+d4 except in circumstances where there were obvious agreements it was needing to be tracked - like in combat or when they need to do multiple things at once or when quiet is more important than the d4?


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 29, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "Its meta-gaming dependence and it breaks immersion as well as belittles the players who might otherwise have a "moment to shine" as the OP put it. I would be annoyed as a GM if I asked for a roll to open a stuck door and the Cleric yelled "I cast guidance!" just as the OP is. The only reason the Cleric knows the player might need help is because I as the GM asked for a role. "
> 
> this is starting in media res to show a figment of a problem
> 
> ...




So I make bad examples. got it.

I agree that the first step should be to talk to players and come to an agreement. That was my suggestion based off personal experience with this spell and my GM.

So if lead scout leads the way through the woods not expecting to run into anyone, you as GM call for perception check, your cool with the Cleric casting Guidance every 10 minutes all day and to make it less annoying on the players the Cleric doesn't have to say it. right?

However, The OP might say having the Cleric saying guiding prayers all day every day while they travel is a bit over board and breaks immersion. Their are other tasks that amount to the same thing. I am guessing that because my GM said basically the same thing when I got the spell. I am required to do a self check rationalize why I am casting prior to casting it. If its not obvious why I am supporting this task that the GM called a roll on then he may ask what my reasoning was and if I can't he does let simply to have a player always aided by guidance. Even your bold points there are times when it doesn't make since to spam the spell to every test out of combat. If we are stealthing through the woods keeping an eye out because we know we are being stalked, he doesn't mind me casting on the scout, because we are on edge and not just walking through the woods. I don't generally get it if I am just keeping an eye out in front. 

... Hopefully the is a better example of "breaking emersion with irrational guidance spam"


----------



## mrpopstar (Mar 29, 2018)

iserith said:


> See, I personally consider "immersion" to be emotional identification with my character and, as a DM, I don't consider "immersion" in that sense a goal when in that role. For others it might mean being solely in "actor stance" or not having mechanics get in the way. For others "breaking immersion" it might just be "you're doing something that annoys me."



We're all allowed to create our own meaning, but "narrative immersion" is a good baseline to work from (considering its precedent as a creative goal in most all modes of storytelling).



> So lots of potential definitions of immersion and those are just the ones I've seen bandied about. There might be others and probably are. Therefore, I don't find the term particularly explanatory without an accompanying definition. It's one of those RPG buzz words that means something different to practically everyone. If the OP can define it more clearly, it may be easier to figure out a solution.



I'll have to pay more attention!


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 29, 2018)

mrpopstar said:


> We're all allowed to create our own meaning, but "narrative immersion" is a good baseline to work from (considering its precedent as a creative goal in most all modes of storytelling).



Does that mean anything more than being interested in the story and cyrious about how it progresses?


----------



## mrpopstar (Mar 30, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> Does that mean anything more than being interested in the story and cyrious about how it progresses?



I think it would be fair to say that interest and curiosity describe "narrative investment." It could mean that you care and have a stake in the outcome. "Narrative immersion" is the experience of perceiving the story as though you are a part of it. It could mean that you feel like you are inside the story, as opposed to just looking in. You could be deeply invested while not the least bit immersed, but I think it would be difficult to be immersed without also being invested.



EDIT: Really, immersion is about forgetting the world around you. You can be immersed in the experience of playing D&D, without being immersed in the narrative you're creating. When you're immersed in the narrative, you forget that you are playing a game. When things happen that remind you of the fact that you're playing a game, immersion can be challenged.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 30, 2018)

mrpopstar said:


> We're all allowed to create our own meaning, but "narrative immersion" is a good baseline to work from (considering its precedent as a creative goal in most all modes of storytelling).
> 
> I'll have to pay more attention!




Kinda sounds like narrative immersion may be one of those terms that means something different to practically everyone?


----------



## mrpopstar (Mar 30, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Kinda sounds like narrative immersion may be one of those terms that means something different to practically everyone?



Anything can mean anything for those who insist.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 30, 2018)

mrpopstar said:


> Anything can mean anything for those who insist.




Sure, but this isn't one of those


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 30, 2018)

ClaytonCross said:


> So I make bad examples. got it.




It's OK man. We all pull a Clayton Cross, sometimes.


----------



## mrpopstar (Mar 30, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Sure, but this isn't one of those



Kind of is.



Saying that "immersion means x _to me_" does not promote flexibility in the term. "To me" is a conversational tool that we use to demonstrate a lack of ability to articulate our true meaning, or to acknowledge a rift in communication where common ground is desired. When you hear "to me" you're being invited to explore an alternate perspective that the person has reached a limit in their ability to communicate using mastered words. It's a tacit acknowledgment that whatever terms being defined as having individual meaning is one that has another meaning that the speaker is unsure of but finds the term useful nonetheless.


----------



## mrpopstar (Mar 30, 2018)

Did not in any way shape or form intend to start one of those semantic conversations that hijack threads. The whole of it is that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] isn't wrong: that "immersion" is a term leveraged inconsistently (misused, overused, disused, reused, or all of the above) within our community and requires further engagement if the conversation is to bear any real fruit.

I'm just pedantic, and I communicate naturally, so I never really realized the inconsistency.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 30, 2018)

mrpopstar said:


> I think it would be fair to say that interest and curiosity describe "narrative investment." It could mean that you care and have a stake in the outcome. "Narrative immersion" is the experience of perceiving the story as though you are a part of it. It could mean that you feel like you are inside the story, as opposed to just looking in. You could be deeply invested while not the least bit immersed, but I think it would be difficult to be immersed without also being invested.
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: Really, immersion is about forgetting the world around you. You can be immersed in the experience of playing D&D, without being immersed in the narrative you're creating. When you're immersed in the narrative, you forget that you are playing a game. When things happen that remind you of the fact that you're playing a game, immersion can be challenged.




An excellent explanation. Thank you.

I suppose it also helps me realize I don't care about immersion. But I really want that investment.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 30, 2018)

mrpopstar said:


> I think it would be fair to say that interest and curiosity describe "narrative investment." It could mean that you care and have a stake in the outcome. "Narrative immersion" is the experience of perceiving the story as though you are a part of it. It could mean that you feel like you are inside the story, as opposed to just looking in. You could be deeply invested while not the least bit immersed, but I think it would be difficult to be immersed without also being invested.
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: Really, immersion is about forgetting the world around you. You can be immersed in the experience of playing D&D, without being immersed in the narrative you're creating. When you're immersed in the narrative, you forget that you are playing a game. When things happen that remind you of the fact that you're playing a game, immersion can be challenged.




So a player that rolls dice as part of their skill check breaks everyones immersion?  DM's should not use skill checks because they break immersion?  Am I getting it now?


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 30, 2018)

mrpopstar said:


> Kind of is.
> 
> 
> 
> Saying that "immersion means x _to me_" does not promote flexibility in the term. "To me" is a conversational tool that we use to demonstrate a lack of ability to articulate our true meaning, or to acknowledge a rift in communication where common ground is desired. When you hear "to me" you're being invited to explore an alternate perspective that the person has reached a limit in their ability to communicate using mastered words. It's a tacit acknowledgment that whatever terms being defined as having individual meaning is one that has another meaning that the speaker is unsure of but finds the term useful nonetheless.




Also, "In my opinion" is pretty much used the same way. I like them both and boy is there "rift in communication" when I post.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 30, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> So a player that rolls dice as part of their skill check breaks everyones immersion?  DM's should not use skill checks because they break immersion?  Am I getting it now?




Step 1. Collect underpants.
Step 2.
Step 3. Profit!

Or as it relates to your post, it looks like you skipped a giant step to turn [MENTION=25352]mrpopstar[/MENTION]'s narrative underpants into profit.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 30, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> So a player that rolls dice as part of their skill check breaks everyones immersion?  DM's should not use skill checks because they break immersion?  Am I getting it now?




So are you immersed now in your D&D character on these forums? A type of goblinoid perhaps? Doesn't die unless burnt with fire? I mean the commitment is real! 

-Joking of course. I can defiantly see that you and Mistwell are either the same person with two accounts or very representative of a group the exact opposite view point that I have a hard time understanding. But other view points are good. If we all agreed their would be no point in coming here to post.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Mar 30, 2018)

Goblinoid? Are you trying to call someone a troll and mistakenly believe that to be a type of goblinoid? They are giants.

Also, accusing people of being sock-puppet accounts just because they happen to agree while disagreeing with you is terribly uncouth.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 30, 2018)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> Goblinoid? Are you trying to call someone a troll and mistakenly believe that to be a type of goblinoid? They are giants.
> 
> Also, accusing people of being sock-puppet accounts just because they happen to agree while disagreeing with you is terribly uncouth.




I literally said I was joking. I was trying to be funny and light hearted between people who have been debating to lower tensions.  I thought the goblinoid thing would be funnier than giant because being accurate might make it a more serious post and I was kind of expecting a return jab from one of them on that regard.. ...As usual my communications skills fail me it seems. I would blame it on lose of connotation in typing but I am told I am not funny in person ether.

To be clear I doubt anyone would take the time to sock-puppet on a D&D forum. I could be wrong but we are talking about a game.  If anyone is offended by my bad hummer even with the disclaimer... I do apologize. 

Does that count as a ClaytonCross? Mistwell? Fog Reaver? I am sure one of the two of you could tell me since I am not sure what my username means as verb now.


----------



## mrpopstar (Apr 1, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> An excellent explanation. Thank you.



Thank you for the kind words!





> I suppose it also helps me realize I don't care about immersion. But I really want that investment.



Investment is crucial, but I don't stress immersion as a goal. It's one of those things that happen as a byproduct of great DM storytelling, but isn't something targeted (in my gaming practice, anyway).




FrogReaver said:


> So a player that rolls dice as part of their skill check breaks everyones immersion?  DM's should not use skill checks because they break immersion?  Am I getting it now?








ClaytonCross said:


> Also, "In my opinion" is pretty much used the same way. I like them both and boy is there "rift in communication" when I post.



LOL Here's to great rifts and conversational tools that bring us together!


----------

