Guidance of the Avatar

[Milo the Gnome]

Every Artificer post on the boards makes reference to this spell and how it makes the UMD checks to craft items a non-issue.

But where the hell is this spell from?!? I've checked a LOT of books but I can't find it.

[Hellborn_Blight]

Here. (http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/sb/sb20010504a) It should probably be noted that it is totally 3rd edition, so be aware of that/make sure the DM is aware of that.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Spellbook Archive (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/sb).

Guidance of the Avatar (http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/sb/sb20010504a).

[Milo the Gnome]

Aaaah, total 3rd party. Gotcha.

Thank you very much for answering that question!

[GilesTheCleric]

Guidance of the Avatar is from WotC's online material, not a third party source.

[Necroticplague]

Aaaah, total 3rd party. Gotcha.

Thank you very much for answering that question!

Not third party, that online article was written by WOTC, so it's just as much dnd as the SRD is.

[Metahuman1]

Wasn't it also printed in the spell compendium? I could SWEAR I recall it being in the spell compendium.

[Crake]

Wasn't it also printed in the spell compendium? I could SWEAR I recall it being in the spell compendium.

there was a similar spell called divine insight which gave you 5+CL (max 15) to a skill.

[Chronos]

And which is a different bonus type, so they stack.

[goto124]

I really should keep a list of Best GitP Thread Titles.

[Hellborn_Blight]

It's not third party, it's Third Edition. As in 3.0, not 3.5. The spell was published in 2001, two years before 3.5 came out, and never updated. Now, some people will tell you that means it's completely fine to use as is, but most DMs don't feel that way, which is why I mentioned it. It is still a possibility for use, but run it by the relevant rulers of your group.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It's not third party, it's Third Edition. As in 3.0, not 3.5. The spell was published in 2001, two years before 3.5 came out, and never updated. Now, some people will tell you that means it's completely fine to use as is, but most DMs don't feel that way, which is why I mentioned it. It is still a possibility for use, but run it by the relevant rulers of your group.

The reason people don't feel it's fine to use as is has little to do with the fact that it's 3.0. It's mostly because a +20 to any skill check you want for a 2nd level spell makes investing in a lot of skills pointless.
It makes pure skillmonkeys even more useless and casters even more versatile and powerful. That's why a lot of DMs don't allow it.

[Crake]

The reason people don't feel it's fine to use as is has little to do with the fact that it's 3.0. It's mostly because a +20 to any skill check you want for a 2nd level spell makes investing in a lot of skills pointless.
It makes pure skillmonkeys even more useless and casters even more versatile and powerful. That's why a lot of DMs don't allow it.

I think he was more referring to 3.0 material in general.

[Amphetryon]

It's not third party, it's Third Edition. As in 3.0, not 3.5. The spell was published in 2001, two years before 3.5 came out, and never updated. Now, some people will tell you that means it's completely fine to use as is, but most DMs don't feel that way, which is why I mentioned it. It is still a possibility for use, but run it by the relevant rulers of your group.
How did you gather your data to reach the highlighted conclusion?

[Hellborn_Blight]

I think he was more referring to 3.0 material in general.

This is it precisely.


How did you gather your data to reach the highlighted conclusion?

Good old talking to and playing with people. Mostly DM's as that is what is relevant here, but truth be told I have read and participated in many discussions online on various issues of 3.0 to 3.5 integration. Everything from it being cheating (not my personal view in most cases), to other players being petty because someone came to the table with a fullblade and now the DM has to adjudicate that BS to the validity of Iaijutsu Focus. So it's all personal experience that can't be communicated as "data." If you want a peer reviewed essay then you are outta luck. While it may be more correct to say that many DM's don't like using non-updated 3.0 material rather than most, if I added the qualifier "that I have met/played with" between "but most DMs" and "don't feel that way" it would actually be less correct. There is not a single person that runs games that I have had personal contact with that finds 3.0 content, to reference my earlier words, "completely fine to use as is." Or in other words, the DM's I know don't think it's ok to show up to a table with without them having ascertained what will specifically be done with the content, what the intention of the player(s) using it are and giving a discerning look at it themselves. Of course this is good practice for a DM in general, but for people that are confident in their system knowledge, it can be a curve ball from a blind spot.

Considering when I started to play was when the 3.0 to 3.5 switch over had just happened and I met all kinds of gamers at college, you'd figure I would have met some holdovers that wanted to use tome and blood something. But that didn't happen. The most that did was some people confusing things like ambidexterity being required for TWF with the new TWF.

In the end I suppose it comes down to if you use that content regularly or not. A strong argument can be made that if you do use the non-updated 3.0 books with requiring DM consultation first, you aren't really playing 3.5 in the purest sense, or at least are using house rules. A fair argument could also be made that 3.0 material is just as much a part of the system as 3.5 is and should always be included as a base part of the game. I'd disagree with the second argument based on what I understand the game to be, but if this is a case of it just being the prevailing mood of my area, then that is fine as well. It not like it hurts to give the advice "ask your DM" even if the specific reason is flavored with bias. Maybe we should make a poll on the subject and create some data? Or a new thread on the subject? It could be fascinating to learn regional habits of the current 3.5 D&Der.

[Deophaun]

The reason people don't feel it's fine to use as is has little to do with the fact that it's 3.0. It's mostly because a +20 to any skill check you want for a 2nd level spell makes investing in a lot of skills pointless.
It makes pure skillmonkeys even more useless and casters even more versatile and powerful. That's why a lot of DMs don't allow it.
It wouldn't have been bad if it did what the article said it was intended to do: Let you take 20 on a skill check in a single round.

[Flickerdart]

Good old talking to and playing with people.
...
There is not a single person that runs games that I have had personal contact with that finds 3.0 content, to reference my earlier words, "completely fine to use as is."
The plural of anecdote is not data; I have never had personal contact with a DM who treats 3.0 content with any extra scrutiny past WotC's own rules for updating it to be 3.5-compliant.

[sleepyphoenixx]

The plural of anecdote is not data; I have never had personal contact with a DM who treats 3.0 content with any extra scrutiny past WotC's own rules for updating it to be 3.5-compliant.

This. In my experience any content bans are based on balance concerns, lack of book access or fluff incompatibility, not on when the content in question was released.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Isn't the official rule that 3e material is still legitimate, as long as it hasn't been updated?

[Chronos]

For that matter, there's nothing about Guidance of the Avatar that makes it obvious it's 3.0 material. A DM, on being shown that page, might say "Hm, looks reasonable, OK, I'll let you take that", or "No, that looks way too powerful, and would be stepping on the rogue's toes", or "No, I don't allow anything at all outside of core", but I can't picture any DM saying "Hm, I'm not sure... What's the date on that article again? And let's see, when was the 3.5 PHB published? In that case, no, I won't allow it".

[Kazyan]

If you're familiar with 3.0, the fact that the casting time is "1 action" is a dead giveaway.

Also, I find the scrutiny towards, well, scrutiny of stuff like GoA galling when people are apparently perfectly willing to accept the converse of its use being widespread with literally the exact same argument in reverse.

[Chronos]

Beg pardon? Scrutiny of the scrutiny? Converse of the use of a spell?

[atemu1234]

Beg pardon? Scrutiny of the scrutiny? Converse of the use of a spell?

Wut mate.

I'm agreeing with most people here, 3e is applicable in 3.5 unless one of two things happen:
1. It is updated.
2. It is banned.

[Kazyan]

Beg pardon? Scrutiny of the scrutiny? Converse of the use of a spell?

"Anecdotes that disagree with me are not valid evidence; I know because of my anecdotes."

[Pluto!]

Good old talking to and playing with people.
These are the opposite of my findings with the same rigorous methods.

[Evolved Shrimp]

These are the opposite of my findings with the same rigorous methods.

So talking to different people can get you different answers…

I think the main gist of Hellborn_Blight’s recommendation was that there is a non trivial chance of a DM banning the Guidance of the Avatar spell because it is 3.0 material, and that it therefore is a good idea to get DM approval before planning to use it. (To which others have added that a DM may also consider banning it because of cheese flavor, which is another reason to clear the use of the spell beforehand.)

Whether a majority of DMs feel that way seems mostly beside the point to me. (Although I find it interesting that attitudes seem to differ quite substantially in different – circles? parts of the world? RPG subcultures?)

[shaikujin]

I guess this is a good place to say

"In Russia, the monsters farm you"

[Zombimode]

If someone in my game wants to use Guidance of the Avatar, I point to Divine Insight. It fulfills the same purpose but without breaking the game. In my view, Divine Insight IS the 3.5 update of Guidance of the Avatar.

[bekeleven]

I ban both, but I take a heavier hand to caster supremacy than most.

[atemu1234]

If someone in my game wants to use Guidance of the Avatar, I point to Divine Insight. It fulfills the same purpose but without breaking the game. In my view, Divine Insight IS the 3.5 update of Guidance of the Avatar.

A +5 difference is not that big a deal for a mid-to-high level artificer.

[Chronos]

But at low levels, it's +15, which is a much bigger deal. It's easy to be brokenly overpowered at high levels; the big deal is how quickly you get there.

On the other hand, Guidance of the Avatar is a competence bonus, which is the easiest bonus type to get for skills, so much or all of the bonus is often wasted. Divine Insight is the much rarer insight bonus type, so you're probably going to get the full bonus.

[Hellborn_Blight]

If you're familiar with 3.0, the fact that the casting time is "1 action" is a dead giveaway.

I'd go a step farther and say it is a dead give away that something is very strange with it, even if you don't know it's because it's 3.0.


"Anecdotes that disagree with me are not valid evidence; I know because of my anecdotes."

Well encapsulated. I agree with the general idea that anecdotes don't necessarily prove your point, though they usually mean something, but you can't then use one yourself after shouting someone else's down :smallamused:


So talking to different people can get you different answers…

I think the main gist of Hellborn_Blight’s recommendation was that there is a non trivial chance of a DM banning the Guidance of the Avatar spell because it is 3.0 material, and that it therefore is a good idea to get DM approval before planning to use it. (To which others have added that a DM may also consider banning it because of cheese flavor, which is another reason to clear the use of the spell beforehand.)

Whether a majority of DMs feel that way seems mostly beside the point to me. (Although I find it interesting that attitudes seem to differ quite substantially in different – circles? parts of the world? RPG subcultures?)

This represents the bulk of what I was trying to say in my longer post. My reason for giving caution with my initial response was because I know it is 3.0 (and everything that goes along with that from my perspective), but also because the DM is just gonna want to know about it in the first place. Nothing like hiding secret information behind an "impossibly high" knowledge check just to see someone get a 45 at level 3 and ruin it.:smallmad:

It is now clear to me that different groups have different expectations of what 3.5 D&D is to them. How those groups break down and where the lines are drawn seems like a worthwhile pursuit of information. I did actually ask at the Gamer's Bazaar when I went in yesterday before our game started and I got bemused looks when I started asking. One person told me, "In math, 3.0 does not equal 3.5. Same for D&D." Another didn't even understand why I was asking such a question (and was a jerk about it for that matter...). So I sent a message to my first DM from college and hilariously he was the most open to the idea, but said "because of how broken 3.0 was" he would have to look over what it was someone wanted to do. So I know where I got the idea of 3.0 being not compatible with 3.5 but that doesn't explain it for the rest of my area. Perhaps it has to do with a prevailing attitude derived from the peoples experience, or lack there of, with 3.0 by itself. Mine was inherited obviously, but I know my DM's was first hand. South-East Missouri btw, just in case anyone wants to do anything with information.