"Every 30 seconds, I cast Shillelagh & Guidance on myself"

[Merudo]

Would you allow a player to cast buffing cantrips (Shillelagh, Guidance, Resistance, etc) every 30 seconds while adventuring?

Entering every combat pre-buffed with cantrips would be greatly advantageous. Knowing Guidance means you'll always have a 1d4 bonus to initiative. And having Shillelagh pre-casted means you save a bonus action.

Guidance can also help with ability checks such as Perception, while Resistance can be helpful if traps are expected.

Obviously, it shouldn't be possible to continuously cast these cantrips while trying to be stealthy or while talking to NPCs. But other than that, I can't see why a DM would forbid it.

[nickl_2000]

Because out of every 60 seconds you are spending 12 of them waving your hands around? So, 1/5 of your total time will be spent not walking or doing anything else?

No one is going to be weirded out by this or wonder why you need to be prepared for combat all the time? No one will question your motives?


I mean sure, it's possible, but in a world where knowledge of magic is known they are going to wonder why you are doing this, and in a world where magic is not known they are going to think you have issues and are a danger to society.

[dmteeter]

I would never let that fly.

It makes no sense. That would be like me walking around and drawing my gun ever 30 seconds just in case someone tries to rob me. Its insane

[Merudo]

Because out of every 60 seconds you are spending 12 of them waving your hands around? So, 1/5 of your total time will be spent not walking or doing anything else?

You can cast spells and walk. Unless others are taking the Dash action, you won't be slower than anyone.



No one is going to be weirded out by this or wonder why you need to be prepared for combat all the time? No one will question your motives?


In a world where you can get ambushed by bandits & monsters at any time, it seems very reasonable to be constantly prepared to fight.

[Galadhrim]

I would never do this as a player.

If I was the dm and a player attempted it I would tell them that they can do that if they wish but that the world will react accordingly. That is not to be punitive, but it stretches credibility that the character would actually do that. To me that is damaging the story being told in order to get a mechanical advantage. I might consider it if the player role played it as a kind of tic or ocd personality, but again, that would be reflected in the way npc's respond to the character.

[Merudo]

To me that is damaging the story being told in order to get a mechanical advantage.

How is that damaging to the story?

Don't you think it makes sense, roleplay-wise, for characters to be extremely careful while exploring dangerous environments such as untamed wilderness & dungeons filled with monsters?

Making sure your weapon is always magically enhanced is adventuring 101.

[ImproperJustice]

Sure.
But the constant vigilance and motion is exhausting.

You have one level of fatigue.

[MaxWilson]

Would you allow a player to cast buffing cantrips (Shillelagh, Guidance, Resistance, etc) every 30 seconds while adventuring?

Sure. But only if they actually do it. I'm betting the player does it a maximum of a hundred times before getting sick of saying, "I cast Shillelagh. I cast Guidance."

If they instead want to declare a series of actions, "I'm continuously casting Guidance on myself," I would do what I've done in the past: eye them askance and say, "Every minute of every hour of every day? Really?" I've never had to escalate beyond that point so I've never needed to come up with rules for exhaustion from repetitive action. The closest I've ever come is PCs spending a couple of hours to hammer their way through an extremely tough door with their bare hands. (I can't remember if they finished on time or got interrupted--I know they fled the dungeon shortly thereafter, I just don't remember if they made it through the door first.)


Obviously, it shouldn't be possible to continuously cast these cantrips while trying to be stealthy or while talking to NPCs. But other than that, I can't see why a DM would forbid it.

I can't see why a PC would actually do it. The benefits are rather small for the amount of hassle required.

A much more likely scenario is casting Guidance and Shillelagh before doing something risky like kicking down a dungeon door. But the player can easily just declare that, or even make it part of her/his standard kicking-the-door-down SOP. I'd be 100% cool with a player saying, "I do the door dance," as long as they and I know what that means.

But there's a big difference between doing the door dance 10 times for 10 rooms, vs. doing it 1440 times in a day. (Also, doing that would interfere with resting.)

[Man_Over_Game]

About as plausible as an Abjuration Wizard/Warlock casting Mage Armor all the time.

Or a Warlock spamming Detect Magic everywhere he goes.

I like to say that those abilities can basically be "on" all the time, but they require concentration. It saves a lot of unnecessary retconning, a lot of dumb situations, and a lot of time for players.

I could be anal and say "Well, you didn't tell me you were casting Shillelagh before going through the big dark spooky door", but who would that benefit?

[NecessaryWeevil]

Okay squad, listen up. We're putting you on the 10th street beat. That's where Officers Kowalski and Smith got shot lost week. And Thompson and Rivers the week before that. And we all know what happened to Gurski. So be safe out there and remember to leave your pre-written obituary with the front desk.

Oh, by the way...HR has okayed this fast-acting, short-lasting stimulant that'll boost your alertness and reaction time. It only lasts thirty seconds but there's guaranteed to be no side effects whatsoever. Pick up a bottle or not, your call...but nothing's stopping the perps from popping the same. So...yer call.

---

What does 'while adventuring' mean? Does it mean every minute spent in hostile territory? Or every thirty seconds while bathing in the inn or using the privy?

[nickl_2000]

In a world where you can get ambushed by bandits & monsters at any time, it seems very reasonable to be constantly prepared to fight.

Question: Are you constantly questioning the DM as to how much time is left on the Shillelagh whenever you enter combat? Because that would just get annoying as a DM and as another player. As I said, it's possible, but I doin't see it working in social situations, and I see it annoying the rest of the table.

But hey, you aren't playing at my table, so go nuts

[MaxWilson]

About as plausible as an Abjuration Wizard/Warlock casting Mage Armor all the time.

Or a Warlock spamming Detect Magic everywhere he goes.

I like to say that those abilities can basically be "on" all the time, but they require concentration. It saves a lot of unnecessary retconning, a lot of dumb situations, and a lot of time for players.

I could be anal and say "Well, you didn't tell me you were casting Shillelagh before going through the big dark spooky door", but who would that benefit?

I'd be okay with a Warlock spamming Detect Magic, since you only need it cast it once every ten minutes, and you can recast it every time you need it. (In actuality I'd rather just make the Detect Magic invocation be a passive benefit: you have Detect Magic on all the time, no concentration required.)

But I would not be okay with a wizard similarly declaring that they have Detect Magic on all the time, or even 50% of the time, due to ritual casting. That amount of effort is not plausible IMO.


Okay squad, listen up. We're putting you on the 10th street beat. That's where Officers Kowalski and Smith got shot lost week. And Thompson and Rivers the week before that. And we all know what happened to Gurski. So be safe out there and remember to leave your pre-written obituary with the front desk.

Oh, by the way...HR has okayed this fast-acting, short-lasting stimulant that'll boost your alertness and reaction time. It only lasts thirty seconds but there's guaranteed to be no side effects whatsoever. Pick up a bottle or not, your call...but nothing's stopping the perps from popping the same. So...yer call.

And that is why police officers never take off their body armor, ever, even to bathe. Security uber alles, 24 hours a day. Right?

[Asmotherion]

Sure. As long as you Role Play it.

I'd also give you the trait "Paranoid: I always think someone's out to get me" for Shillelagh, and "Superstitiously Low Confidance: I believe that I can't archive anything on my own, without first praying to my Deity" for Guidance, and would expect you to hold true to those RP traits.

But that's just how I DM things.

[NecessaryWeevil]

And that is why police officers never take off their body armor, ever, even to bathe. Security uber alles, 24 hours a day. Right?

Well, what does "While adventuring" mean? Does it mean "Whenever I'm in any potentially dangerous situation" or does it really mean 24 hours a day?

[Goggalor]

Would you allow a player to cast buffing cantrips (Shillelagh, Guidance, Resistance, etc) every 30 seconds while adventuring?

Yup, I would allow it. I would also follow it up after the first half hour with a CON check with one thereafter every thirty minutes of increasing difficulty if the PC decides to continue with taxing himself with the effort of twelve seconds (out of every thirty!) of intricate movement and intonations needed for weaving the cantrips. Not only would his muscles start to get fairly sore, but he would start to get fairly parched on top of it, along with having some mental fatigue.

[Galadhrim]

How is that damaging to the story?

Don't you think it makes sense, roleplay-wise, for characters to be extremely careful while exploring dangerous environments such as untamed wilderness & dungeons filled with monsters?

Making sure your weapon is always magically enhanced is adventuring 101.

If they are walking through a dungeon, it makes sense to an extent, except that all that concentrating on guidance and casting 3 spells every minute will make them very unprepared should the dangerous situation they are so worried about actually happen. The kind of player that does this is the same player who is first to whine that the dm is being unfair to them when they have to roll their guidanced perception check at disadvantage bc instead of paying attention to their surroundings they were casting a spell. That is how it is damaging the story. If the player is ok with the in game ramifications of their role play, then I don't have as much of a problem, but my experiences with this type of player leads me to believe that is unlikely.

Wanting to leave your character on an endless loop that makes them appear to be a religious fanatic in 24/7 conversation with their god makes the story head in a very definitive direction. Maybe that is what this player is going for, but I doubt it seriously. This character is literally asking their god for guidance once per minute. How many gods in the dnd universe would actually put up with that?

Making sure your weapon is magically enhanced is adventuring 101, but the game allows for ways to do that without ruining everyone's experience. Just use the bonus action that is required to cast shillelagh when you start your turn. Use guidance when it makes sense in the story and in game mechanical. Use resistance when your buddy or your are about to attempt to disarm a trap. Otherwise, this is munchkin behavior and it makes dnd suck in my opinion. Your first obligation as a player is to not impinge on other people. Munchkining makes the game less fun for your fellow players and for the DM (who is also there to have fun).

[Unoriginal]

Good luck adventuring while you spend 12 seconds every 30 seconds speaking aloud and making gestures.

Also in any civilized settlement you'll probably get the cops called on you.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

I would go with the following rules

1. If you are being ambushed you don't get to start with a free bonus action(and enemies can start with theirs)
2. If you are not being ambushed, both parties get to start with a free bonus action
3. If you are the ambush-er you get a free bonus action (and your enemies do not)

We can resolve the bonus actions in initiative order

The logic behind this is that if you are attacking first you are going to be better prepared (you can always wait to attack until the cantrip runs out for opponent making it pointless) And if nobody has the upper hand in combat then both parties have a short amount of time to respond to the fact that negations have failed. (Functionally everybody is taking the ready action to ready to their opener)

[LudicSavant]

Would you allow a player to cast buffing cantrips (Shillelagh, Guidance, Resistance, etc) every 30 seconds while adventuring?

Entering every combat pre-buffed with cantrips would be greatly advantageous. Knowing Guidance means you'll always have a 1d4 bonus to initiative. And having Shillelagh pre-casted means you save a bonus action.

Guidance can also help with ability checks such as Perception, while Resistance can be helpful if traps are expected.

Obviously, it shouldn't be possible to continuously cast these cantrips while trying to be stealthy or while talking to NPCs. But other than that, I can't see why a DM would forbid it.

As long as it's "while adventuring" this seems entirely reasonable. Expected, even. A trained gunman doesn't explore the real life equivalent of a dungeon with their weapon holstered and in a relaxed stance. They move about with their weapon drawn, loaded, safety off, in a firing stance, checking corners, etc etc. If they had to fiddle with their weapon a bit every minute in order to keep it primed and ready, they'd bloody well do so.

[Desteplo]

Give him a new flaw his character needs to adjust to. He’s obviously showing signs of paranoia. (Keep your players playing characters rather than playing a game) that’d be his choice and will determine.

Let him do it but tell him he needs a character reason for doing it that often.

[Kadesh]

'I am one with the force, the force is with me' seems like Guidance to me. Invoking the name of a God while seems like it may be a common thing. Think how often it seeps into our language today: using Jesus to swear/blaspheme, Alaikum Salaam, Bless You when sneezing, Namaste (even ironically)...

Shillelagh is less easy to explain, but few of us walk down the street carrying 6ft of wood. Guidance might be more explicable, but Shillelagh is purely combative and more threatening if someone passes a DC10 Arcana check with disadvantage.

[Merudo]

Well, what does "While adventuring" mean? Does it mean "Whenever I'm in any potentially dangerous situation" or does it really mean 24 hours a day?

It's unclear where exactly the line is.

I don't think anyone would object to MaxWilson's "door dance", even though few players take advantage of it.

At the other extreme a characters could cast the cantrips constantly while not resting. I picture them attempting to eat a sandwich for lunch, casting the cantrips in-between bites.

Clearly the line is somewhere between these 2 extremes.


As long as it's "while adventuring" this seems entirely reasonable. Expected, even. A trained gunman doesn't explore the real life equivalent of a dungeon with their weapon holstered and in a relaxed stance. They move about with their weapon drawn, loaded, safety off, in a firing stance, checking corners, etc etc. If they had to fiddle with their weapon a bit every minute in order to keep it primed and ready, they'd bloody well do so.

I think so too. I would certainly think it is appropriate for a dungeon crawl.

Maybe not for a 8 hours trek through the wilderness, though.

[the_brazenburn]

Plus, most of the buff cantrips are Cleric or Druid spells, right?

Wouldn't that potentially cause problems with devout NPCs of different religions who might consider you a pagan or heretic for constantly flashing a holy symbol or random totem and muttering prayers to an opposed deity?

Here's what it would look like:

DM: As you enter the dark, imposing temple of Randomius, you are escorted by twelve masked guards with halberds. The torchlight casts eerie shadows that flicker like-
Player: I've heard enough! I start continually casting Guidance in case of assassins.
DM: Okay, every thirty seconds, you whip out a holy symbol of Beligonimia and whisper "O Mighty Belignomia, please bless me so that I might smite down my foes with your power."
Player: Um...
DM: You are instantly surrounded by fifty Randomius acolytes, wielding serrated knives and shouting, "Heresy! Slay the heretics!"

That would stop that behavior rather quickly.

[MaxWilson]

Well, what does "While adventuring" mean? Does it mean "Whenever I'm in any potentially dangerous situation" or does it really mean 24 hours a day?

Good point--maybe I misunderstood the OP. I'd be fine with someone doing the described behavior for about ten minutes.

[lperkins2]

So, I've had this come up before. In a social setting, it's going to make everyone rather on edge, and may well provoke a fight. In a dungeon, it's perfectly reasonable. Of course, unless you are a sorcerer dumping sorcery points, the verbal component means the party scout may well object. If you're casting a spell and are within earshot of any hostiles, they'll know you're nearby, and are more likely to successfully ambush the party. If the situation is such that that is not likely to be a problem, then go for it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Would you allow a player to cast buffing cantrips (Shillelagh, Guidance, Resistance, etc) every 30 seconds while adventuring?

Entering every combat pre-buffed with cantrips would be greatly advantageous. Knowing Guidance means you'll always have a 1d4 bonus to initiative. And having Shillelagh pre-casted means you save a bonus action. Bonus actions don't happen outside of combat, if you want to get all technical and RAW about this.
Plus, this kind of Munchkinnery belongs in Oz.
If you put up with it as a DM at the table, you deserve all of the asshattery that goes with this. The simple way to deal with this is that the PC gets disadvantage on all perception and detection checks, and disadvantage on all initiative rolls, due to talking to themselves all of the time.
If you are the player, ask all of the other players if they are willing to put with this. Do that first.

[Merudo]

Bonus actions don't happen outside of combat, if you want to get all technical and RAW about this.

I'm pretty sure the only things not allowed outside of combat are readied actions.

[Laserlight]

If the player says, every sixty seconds, "I cast Guidance, and I cast Silly Log", loud enough for me to hear, then sure. I somehow doubt that would last very long.

I have no problem with "We do the Door Dance" including a default "I Guidance the Paladin".

[MaxWilson]

Bonus actions don't happen outside of combat, if you want to get all technical and RAW about this.

Any DM who says you can't cast Misty Step outside of combat because it's a bonus action spell is an insane DM.

[Callak_Remier]

Is his characters personality "Paranoid schizophrenic"? you have to remind the player they are playing a character not a videogame.

[Merudo]

Is his characters personality "Paranoid schizophrenic"? you have to remind the player they are playing a character not a videogame.

I think being paranoid in the middle of a dungeon is absolutely proper and well adjusted behavior.

Although I should note that our group plays Call of Cthulhu too, so we are all accustomed to being paranoid...

[Trampaige]

I don't know why people are being hyperbolic saying you're spending 12 full seconds to do this or interrupting sleep.

In 6 seconds, a normal round of combat activity is walking 30 feet, attacking 1-2 times, and possibly taking another action. Casting an Action spell doesn't take a full 6 seconds. Obviously stealthing is out of the question and it isn't available in social settings, but here's something to think about when imposing exhaustion for doing this or constantly keeping up detection spells:

Warlocks can concentrate on Hex for 24 hours eventually, and there is no penalty for that.

[stoutstien]

Just ask him if you allow shillelagh to last an hour he/she will cut that crap out

[Merudo]

I don't know why people are being hyperbolic saying you're spending 12 full seconds to do this or interrupting sleep.

In 6 seconds, a normal round of combat activity is walking 30 feet, attacking 1-2 times, and possibly taking another action. Casting an Action spell doesn't take a full 6 seconds. Obviously stealthing is out of the question and it isn't available in social settings, but here's something to think about when imposing exhaustion for doing this or constantly keeping up detection spells:

Warlocks can concentrate on Hex for 24 hours eventually, and there is no penalty for that.

Good points.

Also I have no idea where the "12" came from - a druid can obviously cast both Shillelagh and Guidance in the same 6 seconds turn.

[Galadhrim]

I don't know why people are being hyperbolic saying you're spending 12 full seconds to do this or interrupting sleep.

In 6 seconds, a normal round of combat activity is walking 30 feet, attacking 1-2 times, and possibly taking another action. Casting an Action spell doesn't take a full 6 seconds. Obviously stealthing is out of the question and it isn't available in social settings, but here's something to think about when imposing exhaustion for doing this or constantly keeping up detection spells:

Warlocks can concentrate on Hex for 24 hours eventually, and there is no penalty for that.

True but they only have to cast it once, implying that once it is set, it's good to go. The fact that a spell like that exists in the first place is good evidence that guidance, shellelagh, and resistance are not meant to be used the same way.

Obviously this is a decision between a dm and a player. People have to decide what kind of game they want to play. To me this type of use is obviously outside of the rules as intended, even if it technically fits into the rules of the game as written. Some people are looking for technicalities to buff their character. To me that is super annoying and I would ask any player at my table to cut this out after the first session they did it in. To each their own.

[UrielAwakened]

This thread is really annoying to read. So many cringey GMs wanting to add some superfluous ability check or tax on this and make it take every longer as a punitive measure for their tiny egos.

Yeah I would probably allow it, who cares. I would also let my spellcasters start with stuff like that up when applicable so it's going to balance out.

I don't make my enemy spellcasters cast Mage Armor at the start of each battle. I just let them have a higher AC. Fair is fair.

[Trampaige]

True but they only have to cast it once, implying that once it is set, it's good to go. The fact that a spell like that exists in the first place is good evidence that guidance, shellelagh, and resistance are not meant to be used the same way.

Obviously this is a decision between a dm and a player. People have to decide what kind of game they want to play. To me this type of use is obviously outside of the rules as intended, even if it technically fits into the rules of the game as written. Some people are looking for technicalities to buff their character. To me that is super annoying and I would ask any player at my table to cut this out after the first session they did it in. To each their own.

And that actually is a very good counter argument against players doing this, I wish I had thought of that angle.

[MaxWilson]

Warlocks can concentrate on Hex for 24 hours eventually, and there is no penalty for that.

Talking is free, so you can have your PC sing "1,000,000,000 bottles of beer on the wall" all the way down to no bottles of beer... but in real life, I find it's an ordeal to even finish 100. I've never even attempted 1000.

Would I sing 1000 if my life depended on it? Sure! But pre-casting Shillelah and Guidance every minute isn't likely to be something your life depends on. Only in a very, very niche scenario would that matter. I'd be better off spending my time thinking about my environment, tracking the exits, scanning the area for threats, laying caltrops at strategic points, etc.

Getting a +1d4 bonus to initiative simply isn't worth all that much. Getting a bonus to Stealth, Investigation and/or Perception rolls arguably matters more--but Stealth may not be compatible with constant spellcasting and is trumped by Pass Without Trace anyway (better use of your concentration). I could see Guidance + Investigation being useful, but you don't need to be constantly casting it--you just cast it before you examine the desk for secret compartments, etc. Perception is sort of in between: you can't always know when you're about to need it, but the mental energy you'd expend on constant spellcasting over long periods of time isn't really compatible with the mental alertness you need to cultivate for situations that would require Perception.

Honestly if you need to be alert for the next hour or more you should probably just cast Enhance Ability (Wisdom) and have done.

[Knaight]

In a world where you can get ambushed by bandits & monsters at any time, it seems very reasonable to be constantly prepared to fight.


Okay squad, listen up. We're putting you on the 10th street beat. That's where Officers Kowalski and Smith got shot lost week. And Thompson and Rivers the week before that. And we all know what happened to Gurski. So be safe out there and remember to leave your pre-written obituary with the front desk.

Oh, by the way...HR has okayed this fast-acting, short-lasting stimulant that'll boost your alertness and reaction time. It only lasts thirty seconds but there's guaranteed to be no side effects whatsoever. Pick up a bottle or not, your call...but nothing's stopping the perps from popping the same. So...yer call.

These bring up a good point - which is that actual soldiers (not cops, soldiers) doing patrols in actual war time have a habit of not necessarily bothering to wear all their armor, because it's heavy and thus a nuisance. Even professional combatants spend the vast majority of their time not fighting, to the tunes of orders of magnitudes more not-fighting time. Constant combat readiness is wearying, and popping a pill every 30 seconds is a ridiculous thing to expect actual human beings to do, casting two spells seems just vastly worse.

In a dungeon or something, this sort of thing would be expected. Casting guidance before doing anything risky? That I could see. Casting shillelagh before every combat? Sure. But if the PCs ambush some spellcasters? Those casters aren't going to have short term buffs up, because that's not how people operate.

[Mikal]

I’d let them. They do it in settings where casting spells might not be appropriate they have to deal with the social consequences, but in a dungeon? Sure. Hopefully you aren’t trying to be stealthy, since you’re talking in a normal tone of voice for 1/5th if every minute.

All this talk about cheese and exhaustion and etc is just sour grapes and bad dming. If you can’t handle
Something as simple as someone using Shillelagh and guidance constantly maybe.... just maybe... you shouldn’t dm.

[Knaight]

All this talk about cheese and exhaustion and etc is just sour grapes and bad dming. If you can’t handle
Something as simple as someone using Shillelagh and guidance constantly maybe.... just maybe... you shouldn’t dm.

Nobody can't handle "Shillelagh and guidance constantly". Some people just think it's dumb and counter to a goal of immersion. Mechanically neither of them are particularly impressive in terms of posing opposition to setting elements, and they can be handled in that sense trivially.

[MaxWilson]

All this talk about cheese and exhaustion and etc is just sour grapes and bad dming. If you can’t handle
Something as simple as someone using Shillelagh and guidance constantly maybe.... just maybe... you shouldn’t dm.

A DM who can't stand up to people who try to exert social pressure to allow cheese will be easy prey for munchkins.

[KorvinStarmast]

Any DM who says you can't cast Misty Step outside of combat because it's a bonus action spell is an insane DM. I agree.

Since the OP was playing rules lawyer to start with, I thought I'd point out the rulesylawyery sort of thing I've seen raised time and again about the action economy.

[Kadesh]

These bring up a good point - which is that actual soldiers (not cops, soldiers) doing patrols in actual war time have a habit of not necessarily bothering to wear all their armor, because it's heavy and thus a nuisance. Even professional combatants spend the vast majority of their time not fighting, to the tunes of orders of magnitudes more not-fighting time. Constant combat readiness is wearying, and popping a pill every 30 seconds is a ridiculous thing to expect actual human beings to do, casting two spells seems just vastly worse.
Black Hawk Down showed the futility of that. Lessons were learned, lets say.

When going on Deliberate ops or patrols, damn straight we wore full battle rattle. We wore lighter routine when our effectiveness as combatants was lessened otherwise. Bimbling round Basra and Ghanners with an additional 3/4 of your own bodyweight got tiresome. Lessening your load might have helped somewhat, but those of us who didn't have Body Armour wished for it when the range went two ways (Cheers for that, MOD!), and when we got it, you soon learned that it was easier to wish you learned to carry another 20lbs, rather than wish you didn't have a bullet in your rattling around inside you.

Rangers in Mog wore less gear because they didnt intend to be shot from the back', and though they were doing some secret squirrel sneaky ninja SF smash and grab. The Somalia OP is still taught as an example of how not to do things, right the way down from the command level, all the way to the infantry tactics when FIBUA, starting with 'that heavy thing that stops you dying is there for a reason'. Complacency was a killer.

I went around FOB's topless, bright pink board shorts and flip flops and got mortared while droppong the kids off. Always worse my vest, couldn't trust a lot of the ANA we had, either through ND's, being Taliban Supporters, or simy hated actually having to do something while getting paid and wanting to shoot the guy making them do push ups and learn actually how to shoot. If I got told praying to jesus every minute woupd have kept me there I'd have been doing that as surely as everywhere I went I had my rifle, 24hr rat pack, full canteen, body armour, string cutter, helmet and puncture kit.

That thing got slept in, eaten in, worn while doing bodily functions, and living general life in, for multiple 6 month stints. A number of times, we got told to go in softcover, and using less heavy armour, and just wear our berets, as parts of hearts and minds. I won't tell you what the opinion of that was.


In a dungeon or something, this sort of thing would be expected. Casting guidance before doing anything risky? That I could see. Casting shillelagh before every combat? Sure. But if the PCs ambush some spellcasters? Those casters aren't going to have short term buffs up, because that's not how people operate.
Again, how is repeating a mnemonic and making an arbitrary gesture equal to taking a hit of sleed every minute?

[Theodoric]

It's a bit meta and gamey, which is not really in the spirit of the game as we talked it over during session 0. So yeah, I'd ask someone not to do that sort of thing, maybe throw it out at the rest of the group, too (since it's really all about player expectation).

It's not a very rules-y answer, but it's exactly the sort of thing a DM is supposed to manage in the first place.

[Brawnspear]

I definitely allow the shillelagh type of thing in my game. This is done on dm and player discussion as follows...


Player: If we are walking around in a dangerous area, like a dungeon or going out on a wilderness mission, is it ok if I cast shillelagh every now and again so I can be prepared if something goes wrong?
DM: Sure, that seems a reasonable precaution, we'll roll a d10 at the beginning of every combat to see how many rounds you have left until you need to refresh it.


Shillelagh is a bonus action that you cast on your walking stick and doesn't require concentration. Guidance on the other hand, is making a specific effort to aid a specific activity for a one time boon that requires concentration and takes a full action to cast. I am less comfortable with that type of thing being done on a constant basis.

[KorvinStarmast]

I definitely allow the shillelagh type of thing in my game. This is done on dm and player discussion as follows...


Player: If we are walking around in a dangerous area, like a dungeon or going out on a wilderness mission, is it ok if I cast shillelagh every now and again so I can be prepared if something goes wrong?
DM: Sure, that seems a reasonable precaution, we'll roll a d10 at the beginning of every combat to see how many rounds you have left until you need to refresh it.


Shillelagh is a bonus action that you cast on your walking stick and doesn't require concentration. Guidance on the other hand, is making a specific effort to aid a specific activity for a one time boon that requires concentration and takes a full action to cast. I am less comfortable with that type of thing being done on a constant basis. OK, who let the reasonable guy in here? :smallbiggrin:

[Merudo]

I agree.

Since the OP was playing rules lawyer to start with, I thought I'd point out the rulesylawyery sort of thing I've seen raised time and again about the action economy.

Again, using bonus actions outside of combat is not against the rules.

[KorvinStarmast]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Merudo]

Player: If we are walking around in a dangerous area, like a dungeon or going out on a wilderness mission, is it ok if I cast shillelagh every now and again so I can be prepared if something goes wrong?
DM: Sure, that seems a reasonable precaution, we'll roll a d10 at the beginning of every combat to see how many rounds you have left until you need to refresh it.


That's why I wish to cast it every 30 seconds (instead of every minute), so that I'm guaranteed at least five rounds of the spell.

[JackPhoenix]

That's why I wish to cast it every 30 seconds (instead of every minute), so that I'm guaranteed at least five rounds of the spell.

Great. How do you do that without watch? Do you spend the time you're not casting it by counting from 1 to 30? Because in that case, disadvantage to notice what's going around here is definitely appropriate.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Shillelagh is a bonus action that you cast on your walking stick and doesn't require concentration. Guidance on the other hand, is making a specific effort to aid a specific activity for a one time boon that requires concentration and takes a full action to cast. I am less comfortable with that type of thing being done on a constant basis.

Can you help me see the significant difference between them?
Is there really a significant difference between using a bonus action once a minute, and using a full action once a minute? Regarding concentration, If a Warlock can concentrate on Hex for 24 hours, why can't they concentrate on Guidance for 1, or 4, or 8?

[ad_hoc]

Sure.

#1 You can't be stealthy as you are making a lot of noise.
#2 That is the thing that you are doing. So you aren't looking out for traps, monsters and such.

[MaxWilson]

Can you help me see the significant difference between them?
Is there really a significant difference between using a bonus action once a minute, and using a full action once a minute? Regarding concentration, If a Warlock can concentrate on Hex for 24 hours, why can't they concentrate on Guidance for 1, or 4, or 8?

Because it has only a one minute duration.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Sure.

#1 You can't be stealthy as you are making a lot of noise.
#2 That is the thing that you are doing. So you aren't looking out for traps, monsters and such.

Yes, but I'm responding to Brawnspear, who said he would allow one and not the other. I agree with your two points, but that's not what they were talking about.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Because it has only a one minute duration.

Yes, but you can cast it serially, thus you can concentrate on it for 1, 4, or 8 or however many hours. I'm trying to understand why Guidance being concentration makes it less realistic to be repeatedly casting.

[holywhippet]

While I'd say this could pass without comment in a dungeon, it would be an issue if you cast it in an urban environment. NPCs would see it happening and be suspicious.

[Knaight]

Again, how is repeating a mnemonic and making an arbitrary gesture equal to taking a hit of sleed every minute?

The spells are implied to be somewhat fatiguing - not at enough to cost actual resources at the cantrip level, but neither does actually fighting in melee combat, and that's certainly fatiguing enough. It's not equivalent to just keeping up a chant while marching.

[loki_ragnarock]

If we assume that spells cast as an action take the same amount out of you as swinging a sword with full murderous intent as an action, I think the previous calls for levels of fatigue make sense. If a we assume that casting a spell as a bonus action takes the same amount out of you as swinging a sword in your off hand with full murderous intent as a bonus action, I think the previous calls for levels of fatigue make sense.

They are roughly equivalent in the action economy. Why would we assume that they aren't roughly equivalent expenditures of effort? To clarify, I'm not being snarky or asking disingenuously, and I'd be happy to read some opinions as to what makes the distinction.


But if they are equivalent; your spiritual wrists might be smarting by days end. And heavens help you if you develop spiritual carpal tunnel.

[ad_hoc]

Yes, but I'm responding to Brawnspear, who said he would allow one and not the other. I agree with your two points, but that's not what they were talking about.

I didn't quote you...

[KorvinStarmast]

Sure.

#1 You can't be stealthy as you are making a lot of noise.
#2 That is the thing that you are doing. So you aren't looking out for traps, monsters and such. As I said earlier ....


The PC gets disadvantage on all perception and detection checks, and gets disadvantage on all initiative rolls, due to talking to themselves all of the time.

Not that hard use the tools already in the rule book to handle this.

[ad_hoc]

As I said earlier ....



Not that hard use the tools already in the rule book to handle this.

I didn't respond to you either.

[Brawnspear]

That's why I wish to cast it every 30 seconds (instead of every minute), so that I'm guaranteed at least five rounds of the spell.

And that is another part of the conversation. Player asks for X, Dm says I'd be more comfortable with Y, since it feels more of an organic and simple way to run things.

In my situation, that's just how I run things at my table. Choice and decisions are an important portion of the game. What do I do with my bonus action is a choice that players have to make. I want to make that choice less onerous but not remove it entirely. Sometimes you will have 9 rounds left and be able to sail through the encounter, other times it's going to drop after the first round, so you need to make a decision o what's more important to you. Having a minimum of 5 rounds at all times takes almost all risk out of using the spell since almost all combats will be done by then.

[Ganymede]

If he or she is willing to risk some constitution checks to stave off exhaustion, sure.

[Brawnspear]

Can you help me see the significant difference between them?
Is there really a significant difference between using a bonus action once a minute, and using a full action once a minute? Regarding concentration, If a Warlock can concentrate on Hex for 24 hours, why can't they concentrate on Guidance for 1, or 4, or 8?

For me, it's the intent of a spell. Guidance is meant to be a one and done for a single skill check. Using it at will on the offchance the dm calls for a skill check within that minute of time seems a little off. If you are going to have to climb a pile of rocks, or talk to Jimbo McNPC saying a quick prayer for focus is fine. Again, this is what I do at my table, and I haven't actually had anyone ask to do the guidance all the time.

To compare to Hex, I suppose again, hex is meant to be used as a long term buff and can have multiple targets over it's life time, instead of guidance which is also a concentration spell but only affects your next skill check. There is also the argument one could make that hex has a spell level attached and therefore a resource cost. But again, it all seems like an intended feel of the spell to me, the DM. It may be a bit arbitrary, but it's how I would rule it at my table.

That all being said, I am generally fine with letting people cast guidance in response to most skill checks asked for during exploration or roleplaying. I guess the big thing is that my ruling wouldn't give out the d4 for initiative and the first ability check you may need to make during combat.

[Corran]

Wouldn't it be much more straightforward and honest (and far less silly), if you just asked the DM for permission to have the advantages of shillelagh and/or guidance as constant effects? The GM can then say ''yes'' or ''no'', and you carry on playing the game normally.

To answer the op though, I would neither do this nor allow it.

[KorvinStarmast]

I didn't respond to you either.So what? It was posted before you entered it. Sometimes, it's handy to read the thread before chiming in. Other times, not.

[Legendairy]

Black Hawk Down showed the futility of that. Lessons were learned, lets say.

When going on Deliberate ops or patrols, damn straight we wore full battle rattle. We wore lighter routine when our effectiveness as combatants was lessened otherwise. Bimbling round Basra and Ghanners with an additional 3/4 of your own bodyweight got tiresome. Lessening your load might have helped somewhat, but those of us who didn't have Body Armour wished for it when the range went two ways (Cheers for that, MOD!), and when we got it, you soon learned that it was easier to wish you learned to carry another 20lbs, rather than wish you didn't have a bullet in your rattling around inside you.

Rangers in Mog wore less gear because they didnt intend to be shot from the back', and though they were doing some secret squirrel sneaky ninja SF smash and grab. The Somalia OP is still taught as an example of how not to do things, right the way down from the command level, all the way to the infantry tactics when FIBUA, starting with 'that heavy thing that stops you dying is there for a reason'. Complacency was a killer.

I went around FOB's topless, bright pink board shorts and flip flops and got mortared while droppong the kids off. Always worse my vest, couldn't trust a lot of the ANA we had, either through ND's, being Taliban Supporters, or simy hated actually having to do something while getting paid and wanting to shoot the guy making them do push ups and learn actually how to shoot. If I got told praying to jesus every minute woupd have kept me there I'd have been doing that as surely as everywhere I went I had my rifle, 24hr rat pack, full canteen, body armour, string cutter, helmet and puncture kit.

That thing got slept in, eaten in, worn while doing bodily functions, and living general life in, for multiple 6 month stints. A number of times, we got told to go in softcover, and using less heavy armour, and just wear our berets, as parts of hearts and minds. I won't tell you what the opinion of that was.


Again, how is repeating a mnemonic and making an arbitrary gesture equal to taking a hit of sleed every minute?

So much so this, at times when we could drop kit we did and sometimes that was out and about. We worked with and trained the locals to fight back, we were geared most the time. When out with people our government funded to become freedom fighters, I know I could say a few lines to make sure they didn’t start shooting at us I would have, and they did. I’ve had friends die because they became lax, as he says and you will hear in any military a ton of times until it’s so ingrained it makes you sick “complacency kills”. Not just this but to make it worse, conplacency might not kill you, it could get your buddies killed.

I no joke, no exaggerating, carried up to 120lbs of kit with full IBA (minus samurai plates and side armor) between the long range M24, standard rifle and ammo M4, 203 rounds I weighed myself down pretty bad, the good news is after we did get where we were going we weren’t going to move a lot ;) I carried this and it was excessive depending on what you did, yeah it wasn’t always like this. During nightly snatch and grabs and raids it was usually just PCC/PCI, IBA, ACH, NODS, and rifle with a few hundred rounds. Then it was still around 60lbs or so (my memory is a bit fuzzy on the exact weight I could be off by a bit).

But to play devils advocate not everyone trained hard and could carry what I did, also not everyone went into the dark side of the military and not everyone would be ready all the time or hell even half of it. So it may boil down to the character, I watched some officers who didn’t come through the right channels get close to dying on multiple occasions, that’s now how they trained, their job didn’t require it. So ask yourself if it makes sense for the character.

What Khadesh and I are talking about is someone trained for this sort of thing, is a wizard or Druid training for this sort of thing or is it just something they can do at a given time. I was hyper aware, still am, but that does not mean every Tom **** and harry in the military is even close to combat ready, even while in combat.

To add a bit to this, if the enemies see them do this at the very least they will know that minor tactic and will know who to target with assassination attempts and whatnot, that’s obviously the spellcaster.

[Zalabim]

I don't know why people are being hyperbolic saying you're spending 12 full seconds to do this or interrupting sleep.

In 6 seconds, a normal round of combat activity is walking 30 feet, attacking 1-2 times, and possibly taking another action. Casting an Action spell doesn't take a full 6 seconds. Obviously stealthing is out of the question and it isn't available in social settings, but here's something to think about when imposing exhaustion for doing this or constantly keeping up detection spells:

Warlocks can concentrate on Hex for 24 hours eventually, and there is no penalty for that.
Things people do in combat are for combat. When exploring the rules are different because the expectations are different. This is why you can only Dash a limited number of times in the abstract chase rules, and why those rules and the general travel rules don't care what your movement speed in combat is. Combat is combat. Travel is not. Sprinting is not. That said, how do folks feel this compares to ritual spellcasting? Can someone keep up Tenser's Floating Disk while they travel back to town? Just casting Find Familiar at all takes an hour. Simulacrum takes 12 hours. Hallow takes a full 24. If there were combat while casting these, you'd be using your action each round on spellcasting. Isn't all that harder than keeping up a 1 minute spell for 10 minutes? I think a good assumption is that spellcasting is like using a knife or ax. If I'm just cutting bread, it's not that tiring. Chopping wood is hard work, but an actual battle for your life is harder still.

Sure.

#1 You can't be stealthy as you are making a lot of noise.
#2 That is the thing that you are doing. So you aren't looking out for traps, monsters and such.
This is very true though. As an application of "Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger." "...A character not watching for danger can do one of the following activities instead, or some other activity with the DM's permission." You can cast spells while traveling, but you aren't watching for danger, and you don't contribute your passive Wisdom (perception) score to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats. That means if there's an ambush, you are surprised.

As I said earlier ....

Not that hard use the tools already in the rule book to handle this.
Technically the tool in the book is not getting passive perception at all, though disadvantage or -5 to the score are certainly options for the homebrewer in us all.

[Toadkiller]

Sure.
But the constant vigilance and motion is exhausting.

You have one level of fatigue.
This is perfect.

My impulse was to simply have it stop working after 45 minutes or so. For a day or two.

[Toadkiller]

But now that I’m thinking about it... after a suitable amount of this a representative of the diety involved (the God of Magic if no one else) would appear to find out what in heaven’s (or whatever) name the individual does think they are doing? “Do you really think that just because there might be 4 ogres in the room down the hall (it’s 5 by the way) you are entitled to virtually endless requests for assistance? That we have nothing, just nothing, to do with our time than to help you fart without being noticed by the elf? I have *never* seen the like. DO NOT bother us again without a REASON! I knew we should have gone with that gnome, but no we needed to fill the quota of <insert player’s gender and species> and you were the only one available. Nothing but a bother.”

The emmisary would then reappear whenever it seemed appropriate to “help”. Think Q from TNG. But mainly because it would make me giggle.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Because out of every 60 seconds you are spending 12 of them waving your hands around? So, 1/5 of your total time will be spent not walking or doing anything else?

Once per minute, I spend a fraction of a six-second round (which doesn’t impede movement) muttering, “I am one with d4s, and d4’s with me” and clutching my holy symbol for good luck. Because clerics pray to gods. It’s kind of their thing.


Question: Are you constantly questioning the DM as to how much time is left on the Shillelagh whenever you enter combat? Because that would just get annoying as a DM and as another player. As I said, it's possible, but I doin't see it working in social situations, and I see it annoying the rest of the table.

But hey, you aren't playing at my table, so go nuts

I roll 1d10. That many rounds has passed since I last cast Guidance and Shillelagh (on the same round) when initiative is rolled. That wasn’t so hard.


'I am one with the force, the force is with me' seems like Guidance to me.

THANK YOU

[Merudo]

Just casting Find Familiar at all takes an hour. Simulacrum takes 12 hours. Hallow takes a full 24. If there were combat while casting these, you'd be using your action each round on spellcasting. Isn't all that harder than keeping up a 1 minute spell for 10 minutes?


Good point. It's strange to see people insist that there should be all kind of exhaustion penalties for casting 1 hour worth of cantrips spread over 5 hours, yet the same people would not give any exhaustion for casting Find Familiar for 1 hour straight...



You can cast spells while traveling, but you aren't watching for danger, and you don't contribute your passive Wisdom (perception) score to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats. That means if there's an ambush, you are surprised


Since the player would be casting spells 20% of the time, I personally would have the player roll a d5, and give them a 20% chance of being surprised.

[strangebloke]

At the inn? Yeah that's unrealistic.

In the lair of Set-Azoth, Lord of illuminating darkness?

What self respecting cleric *wouldn't* be constantly asking for guidance?

[Kadesh]

As I said earlier ....



Not that hard use the tools already in the rule book to handle this.
None of those are existing rules.

Thanks.

[Arkhios]

I mean, sure, guidance maybe, if the character is a fanatic follower of a deity, and constantly prays for his/her deity for guidance, and is role-played as a paranoid skittish coward, who would rather flee than fight.

But, to play the devil's advocate, attacking, casting a spell, etc. actions are listed in the rules, under the topic "Actions in Combat". If the character isn't in combat, you can say that you don't have said actions to be used, because you're not in combat. Period.

But, as I said, that would be the devil's advocate speaking. You or I may or may not fully agree with that.

[Knaight]

But, to play the devil's advocate, attacking, casting a spell, etc. actions are listed in the rules, under the topic "Actions in Combat". If the character isn't in combat, you can say that you don't have said actions to be used, because you're not in combat. Period.

But, as I said, that would be the devil's advocate speaking. You or I may or may not fully agree with that.

It's also completely ridiculous. The grammatical structure of "[Actions] in [Circumstances]" doesn't imply that those actions only exist under those circumstances. If someone makes some rules for, say, "Breathing at high altitudes" that doesn't imply that nobody breathes at sea level.

[Specter]

Sure, except he's now a paranoid man. And everyone finds that weird. Also mechanically I could care less as a DM about a player with high initiative.

[MaxWilson]

Yes, but you can cast it serially, thus you can concentrate on it for 1, 4, or 8 or however many hours. I'm trying to understand why Guidance being concentration makes it less realistic to be repeatedly casting.

Sing this:

Ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall,
Ninety-nine bottles of beer.
If one of those bottles should happen to fall
Ninety-eight bottles of beer on the wall.

Ninety-eight bottles of beer on the wall,
Ninety-eight bottles of beer.
If one of those bottles should happen to fall
Ninety-seven bottles of beer on the wall.

Ninety-seven bottles of beer on the wall,
Ninety-seven bottles of beer.
If one of those bottles should happen to fall
Ninety-six bottles of beer on the wall.

Ninety-six bottles of beer on the wall,
Ninety-six bottles of beer.
If one of those bottles should happen to fall
Ninety-five bottles of beer on the wall.

Ninety-five bottles of beer on the wall,
Ninety-five bottles of beer.
If one of those bottles should happen to fall
Ninety-four bottles of beer on the wall.

and keep going all the way down to one, and then try to tell me that casting Guidance once a minute, 1440 times in a day is no different from concentrating on Hex for 24 hours.


Once per minute, I spend a fraction of a six-second round (which doesn’t impede movement) muttering, “I am one with d4s, and d4’s with me” and clutching my holy symbol for good luck. Because clerics pray to gods. It’s kind of their thing.

The next Disney Star Wars movie should feature Rey and her buddies constantly muttering to themselves, "I am one with the Force," at least four times in every scene, because that would be totally appropriate and Jedi-like.

It would make them look brain-damaged in fact.

[Specter]

Another piece of advice:
As an Arcane Trickster, I also run into this problem with Mage Hand, since it lasts for one minute. But that doesn't mean I'm casting it every minute. Think about it: What are the situations where a combat is most likely to break out? During place transitions (opening a door, jumping down a ledge, etc.), or activating things (opening chests, checking symbols). So if you are ready during those moments, you shouldn't worry about casting things every minute. Maybe once your DM will throw something at you with surprise and your spell won't be cast, but that should be far from routine.

[Arkhios]

It's also completely ridiculous. The grammatical structure of "[Actions] in [Circumstances]" doesn't imply that those actions only exist under those circumstances. If someone makes some rules for, say, "Breathing at high altitudes" that doesn't imply that nobody breathes at sea level.

I know it is ridiculous. I don't really read the rules like that. But it's actually pretty much the same situation with someone saying "I cast X and Y repeatedly, only because I can and because the rules don't say I can't". It's equally ridiculous.

[KorvinStarmast]

None of those are existing rules.

Thanks. I think you need to read the rules on advantage and disadvantage, again. In The Book. The DM applying advantage where it is appropriate is right there, in the book.
Sometimes an ability check, attack roll, or saving throw is modified by special situations called
advantage and disadvantage. Advantage reflects the positive circumstances surrounding a d20 roll, while disadvantage reflects the opposite And here

The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result.
It says the same thing in the PHB.

Cleric is walking about constantly talking/casting/doing things; cleric accrues disadvantage on initiative and perception.
Why? Cleric is preoccupied with that other activity. That isn't a guaranteed fail; cleric can still pass a check with disadvantage. But that circumstantial disadvantage reflects the actions the cleric is taking to extremes. Likewise with initiative, and disadvantage on that. Unlike the rest of the party, who are alert and paying attention to their environment, old cleric over there is preoccupied with this never ending litany of paranoia.

You could also rule that the whole party has disadvantage on perception, thanks to numb nuts over there muttering constantly; but that would depend on if they are close together or spread out.

As noted above, in social situations rather than in a dungeon crawl this creates more room for negative reactions and disadvantage on some social interactions.

Use advantage and disadvantage, as a DM, where it applies. That is part of how 5e works. It's a role playing game, not a computer game.

[strangebloke]

Another piece of advice:
As an Arcane Trickster, I also run into this problem with Mage Hand, since it lasts for one minute. But that doesn't mean I'm casting it every minute. Think about it: What are the situations where a combat is most likely to break out? During place transitions (opening a door, jumping down a ledge, etc.), or activating things (opening chests, checking symbols). So if you are ready during those moments, you shouldn't worry about casting things every minute. Maybe once your DM will throw something at you with surprise and your spell won't be cast, but that should be far from routine.

EXACTLY

Sure, casting guidance every minute, all day every day is ridiculous.

Casting it every minute for the ten minutes you spend exploring an enemy structure is perfectly reasonable. And since casting guidance like this takes only (at most) 1/10 of the time, it isn't really stopping you from doing something else.

I rolled a life cleric in a previous campaign, and every time I 'cast guidance' I would just make eye contact with another character and say: "Pelor Loves You." which is pretty much exactly what I imagine happening in game as well.

My rule for this as a DM is "No automatic castings, no retroactive castings." If you don't explicitly say that you're casting guidance, you don't get the 1d4.

[GorogIrongut]

At my table, casting Guidance is as simple as saying, '<insert deity's name> protect/bless/guide me'. If a fight breaks out, I mentally calculate how much in game/character time has passed since something similar was said by the player. I use that to determine if they count as having it currently active. No muss. No fuss.

For a truly religious individual, it wouldn't be out of character to say pretty frequently something like, 'Moradin guide my steps.'

[KorvinStarmast]

EXACTLY

Sure, casting guidance every minute, all day every day is ridiculous.

Casting it every minute for the ten minutes you spend exploring an enemy structure is perfectly reasonable. And since casting guidance like this takes only (at most) 1/10 of the time, it isn't really stopping you from doing something else.

I rolled a life cleric in a previous campaign, and every time I 'cast guidance' I would just make eye contact with another character and say: "Pelor Loves You." which is pretty much exactly what I imagine happening in game as well.

My rule for this as a DM is "No automatic castings, no retroactive castings." If you don't explicitly say that you're casting guidance, you don't get the 1d4.
Hey, who let the reasonable guy into the room? :smallbiggrin:

[Armored Walrus]

"I attack the square directly in front of me every six seconds in case an invisible creature is there. There are no fatigue rules, I can swing my sword as often as I want, so assume I'm doing it all the time."

That sentence and OP make the same amount of sense to me.

[MaxWilson]

At my table, casting Guidance is as simple as saying, '<insert deity's name> protect/bless/guide me'. If a fight breaks out, I mentally calculate how much in game/character time has passed since something similar was said by the player. I use that to determine if they count as having it currently active. No muss. No fuss.

For a truly religious individual, it wouldn't be out of character to say pretty frequently something like, 'Moradin guide my steps.'

That sounds fine. I assume you do the same if they say, "<name> bless you," yes? And not while they're holding concentration on something like Enhance Ability. But overall this sounds like something I'd be perfectly happy to allow at my table.



Why? Cleric is preoccupied with that other activity. That isn't a guaranteed fail; cleric can still pass a check with disadvantage. But that circumstantial disadvantage reflects the actions the cleric is taking to extremes. Likewise with initiative, and disadvantage on that. Unlike the rest of the party, who are alert and paying attention to their environment, old cleric over there is preoccupied with this never ending litany of paranoia.

You could also rule that the whole party has disadvantage on perception, thanks to numb nuts over there muttering constantly; but that would depend on if they are close together or spread out.

There is even precedent: IIRC travelling at Fast speed imposes disadvantage on all of your perception checks, as well as making stealth impossible.


"I attack the square directly in front of me every six seconds in case an invisible creature is there. There are no fatigue rules, I can swing my sword as often as I want, so assume I'm doing it all the time."

That sentence and OP make the same amount of sense to me.

Well-played, sir!

[Segev]

"The druid was a nervous sort. You could see it in the way he walked, in how his eyes shifted every which way; you could hear it in his constantly-muttered prayers for guidance and strength. It would have been annoying, but for the fact that his prayers sometimes were for us, too, when we needed them, and I swear, it made some difference. That, and it eventually became background noise. Only really was a problem when we had to sneak through areas. Without a prayer on his lips, the poor fellow looked positively panicked."

-From the journals of Brad the Bard, Gallant Adventurer

[Kadesh]

I think you need to read the rules on advantage and disadvantage, again. In The Book. The DM applying advantage where it is appropriate is right there, in the book. And here

It says the same thing in the PHB.

Cleric is walking about constantly talking/casting/doing things; cleric accrues disadvantage on initiative and perception.
Why? Cleric is preoccupied with that other activity. That isn't a guaranteed fail; cleric can still pass a check with disadvantage. But that circumstantial disadvantage reflects the actions the cleric is taking to extremes. Likewise with initiative, and disadvantage on that. Unlike the rest of the party, who are alert and paying attention to their environment, old cleric over there is preoccupied with this never ending litany of paranoia.

You could also rule that the whole party has disadvantage on perception, thanks to numb nuts over there muttering constantly; but that would depend on if they are close together or spread out.

As noted above, in social situations rather than in a dungeon crawl this creates more room for negative reactions and disadvantage on some social interactions.

Use advantage and disadvantage, as a DM, where it applies. That is part of how 5e works. It's a role playing game, not a computer game.

Correct. Nowhere does it say that casting spells gives you disadvantage, or exhaustion. Casting firebolt 1/minute wouldn't do any of what you suggested, so what you are doing is outside of the rules, outside of 'because the DM said so', while everything else has proscribed cricumstances.

There is a difference, and believing otherwise is just obtuse.

[GorogIrongut]

"The druid was a nervous sort. You could see it in the way he walked, in how his eyes shifted every which way; you could hear it in his constantly-muttered prayers for guidance and strength. It would have been annoying, but for the fact that his prayers sometimes were for us, too, when we needed them, and I swear, it made some difference. That, and it eventually became background noise. Only really was a problem when we had to sneak through areas. Without a prayer on his lips, the poor fellow looked positively panicked."

-From the journals of Brad the Bard, Gallant Adventurer

Class.


And yes Max, I have no problem with it being, 'Pelor bless you/him/it/her/them or any other appellative that you can think of.'

[ChampionWiggles]

Eh...this is one of those things where I'm not sure how I'd rule it as a DM. The question itself definitely feels like it's coming from a power-gaming/munchkin mindset, which I think brings up a different issue. But at the same time, I've had this thought process before for a character as a player, because...why would you NOT always want your club/quarterstaff to be a magical weapon when in enemy territory? My usual thought process on a ruling as DM is if a player asks if their character can do this thing and I can't think of a reason why not other than "No, because that breaks the game/campaign"...I will allow it (though sometimes begrudgingly). This is kind of one of those situations where I can't think of a reason other than that to not allow this to happen.

That being said, having consequences to this constant action isn't unreasonable either. Like others have said, having NPCs see this in social situations is probably going to cause them to react cautiously towards the character doing the casting. Character casts Shillelagh in middle of town? NPCs are going to get a little tense seeing a random stranger making their weapon magical in their town. Casting guidance in front of an NPC could yield varying results. Seeing such a religiously devout person could set them at ease, could be a bit off-putting, and then you could even take another direction and have the NPC be someone who hates the gods (or that character's particular god) and roll their eyes thinking "Oh jeez, one of THESE guys" and have disadvantage on the following interaction (But hey, you got the +1d4).

In a dungeon makes sense, just as long as the player realizes that both spells have a verbal component and so you pre-casting those all the time could echo off the walls and alert the group of Hobgoblins down the hall, thus giving them time to prep an ambush. Was the magic weapon and +1d4 on Initiative worth dealing with a surprise round?

Some of the rulings that I've seen in this thread would make sense and seem reasonable to me as a player, while some of the others (Like levels of exhaustion)...don't. It comes off as the "No! You're not playing the game the way *I* want you to, so SUFFER!"

I like to think of it this way. Once every minute, you pull out your phone and check it. Are you distracted during that whole minute, even when not looking at your phone? Doubtful. Are you distracted during the six seconds checking the phone? Probably. So, I'd probably rule it similar to others who roll a d10 when combat starts or when a trap happens to see how long the spell is still up with the caveat that on a 1, while your spell gets to be fresh, you were in the middle of casting it, therefore being distracted and take disadvantage on the relevant roll.

[KorvinStarmast]

so what you are doing is outside of the rules, . No, it is not outside of the rules. It's part of the rules, and part of the structure of the game.
You appear to misunderstand 5e design philosophy. A lot.
We even have a thread about that on the front page.
At this point, maybe we need to agree to disagree.

[Willie the Duck]

Would you allow a player to cast buffing cantrips (Shillelagh, Guidance, Resistance, etc) every 30 seconds while adventuring?

I declare my dodge on you! (http://goblinscomic.com/comic/02042006)

[Kadesh]

No, it is not outside of the rules. It's part of the rules, and part of the structure of the game.
You appear to misunderstand 5e design philosophy. A lot.
We even have a thread about that on the front page.
At this point, maybe we need to agree to disagree.
You disagree with what you want while you provide me a page rule that says casting spells/cantrips give disadvantage on something that is otherwise not a DM saying something.

I'm not saying a DM is wrong to do so. I am saying that a DM needs to be aware that they are doing something not covered by the rules in this circumstance.

Please do not tell me what I do and do not understand, when you appear to be lacking in your own insight, have a nice day.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not saying a DM is wrong to do so. I am saying that a DM needs to be aware that they are doing something not covered by the rules in this circumstance. That is not correct, and I cited the rules on disadvantage/advantage already. That is the core of our disagreement. The DM does not need a mother may I from you, or me, or a page, to look at a circumstance and apply disadvantage, or advantage. That is part and parcel to this edition of the game. I am pretty sure that you've got the DMG and have reviewed its contents, so I won't bother you with that.

You will note that a couple of other posters have posted their variation on "this is how I'd rule it." On two of those, I made the "who let the reasonable guy in here" remark. Those are also correct.

[Kadesh]

That is not correct, and I cited the rules on disadvantage/advantage already. That is the core of our disagreement. The DM does not need a mother may I from you, or me, or a page, to look at a circumstance and apply disadvantage, or advantage. That is part and parcel to this edition of the game. I am pretty sure that you've got the DMG and have reviewed its contents, so I won't bother you with that.

You will note that a couple of other posters have posted their variation on "this is how I'd rule it." On two of those, I made the "who let the reasonable guy in here" remark. Those are also correct.

A DM doesn't need a rule to say everyone can shoot laser beams out of their eyes, but they can allow it. It doesn't make it any more a part of the rules that there are proscribed circumstances which specifically cause it.

Either you are telling me I'm wrong that there is nothing outside of the 'Mother May I' telling a DM they don't need the 'Mother May I', or you source the rule which states casting a spell repreatedly does X effect (like how Augury states repeated castings have a particular effect).

Small example, non-exhaustive list of things which provide disadvantage explicitly:
- Prone
- Dim Light
- Blinded Condition

These specifically state under the proscribed condition that certain things have disadvantage. There isn't one which states that it apploes when casting the spell. So, you are left with the only return: A DM is creating their rule to apply to this circumstance.

Again, I'm not saying that DM's are wrong to rule that way, or that they're being unreasonable. Just stating that it's not within the rules (Outside of a DM saying that Pink and Purple Dragons exist for Madam Mim to take advantage of) , so please stop reading what you want to and actually read what's written.

[KorvinStarmast]

Again, I'm not saying that DM's are wrong to rule that way, or that they're being unreasonable. Thank you. We aren't getting anywhere with the rest of this.
That there are some explicit examples the trigger advantage and disadvantage does not mean that an explicit trigger is required for advantage / disadvantage. And that, right there, is the fundamental (general) rule of applying advantage and disadvantage.
This is why I pointed you toward the 5e philosophy thread: what you have been arguing is from a different game (version) philosophy. FWIW, there's another thread about Guidance being overpowered that you may find interesting. It might still be on the front page.

[ATHATH]

I just fluff casting cantrips often (and constantly casting rituals) as something that spellcasters are trained to be able to do. Cantrips are supposed to be near-effortless to cast (hence why they don't take up a spell slot), no? Are you going to become exhausted by performing single digit multiplication in your head all day? To a spellcaster with a likely exceptionally high mental casting stat (or ones with lower casting stats that have put (in their backstory/caster training) time and effort into learning this skill), cantrips and rituals are probably only as hard as basic, 2nd grade level math.

Maybe constantly casting rituals is a form of practice for spellcasters, contributing to the training that characters do between level ups (at some tables, at least).

Of course, you SHOULD still roll to check the durations of those spells when an encounter begins.

[Talionis]

Yup, I would allow it. I would also follow it up after the first half hour with a CON check with one thereafter every thirty minutes of increasing difficulty if the PC decides to continue with taxing himself with the effort of twelve seconds (out of every thirty!) of intricate movement and intonations needed for weaving the cantrips. Not only would his muscles start to get fairly sore, but he would start to get fairly parched on top of it, along with having some mental fatigue.

I would echo this... I think it makes sense that in some situations you are on alert and you would stay on your guard. Casting Guidance for increased perception checks if you think you could be surprised makes sense. Casting Shileleigh over and over could almost be a nervous tick...

But no one can do this all the time or for hours on end without rest. So I would house rules some fatigue... Maybe saying that it would only be up 1/4 of the time because you'll probably allow longer and longer times between castings after nothing happens.

Usually there are enough situations where, we are opening the door... I cast Guidance and Shilleliegh before I go in anyway.

[Willie the Duck]

Cantrips are supposed to be near-effortless to cast (hence why they don't take up a spell slot), no?

Well, I don't know. I think that's a subjective or gaming group/DM's call. Swinging a sword (or better yet axe) also does not take up specified resources, but if someone is swinging an axe regularly, I as a DM would eventually figure out some kind of fatigue mechanic (probably lesser to the actual exhaustion system, unless they keep keep on doing it). I don't know about cantrip-casting.

If I were to limit this action, it'd be much more of an attention thing ('yes, you started out doing it every 30 seconds, but then you noticed that your mind had wandered to the actual surroundings and you'd gone 5 minutes scanning the hallway for monsters without re-mumbling your incantations').

[Legendairy]

No one is this alert 100% of the time honestly. In a new town maybe for a day or two, a town that you know isn’t hostile I would probably say no. In the crypts of the lich that melts faces, even the person ignorant to their surroundings still has some sort of self preservation kicking, I would probably allow it there.

Can you be stabbed in your hometown? Absolutely! Does that mean you walk around crazy-eyeing every person brandishing a glowing gnarly stick all the time? Probably not. If you do the local authorities may want to “have a word with you”.


Also makes it super easy to set them up for a crime.
Victim-“The son of a ***** kept mumbling to Pelor and turning on his flashlight stick before clubbing me and robbing me!”
Pc-“must be another guy walking around town muttering to pelor with a glowing stick!”

I guess for me then I would allow it with the Player understanding that there will be Some RP fallout.
Rival clerics jumping you when you are out grocery shopping and the like.

[MadBear]

FWIW, To me if a caster was doing this habitually like this, it'd be harder for them to pay attention. So in that regard they'd have disadvantage on perception checks, and their passive perception would go down by 5. So they can absolutely do this, but there overall awareness will suffer a bit.

(actually, thinking a bit more, disadvantage is a bit rough for what is a small but not huge distraction, I'd probably impose a -2 to their perception checks/passive perception, but that doesn't fit with the leaving out fiddly # design of 5th edition.

[Aetis]

At-will is at-will. If people gain significant bonuses by doing this every 30 seconds, then NPCs (aka people who lived in this world for their entire lives) would be used to it, and they probably do the same thing while walking around.

If you don't like it, then just put a number/rest on it. Problem solved.

[Kaliayev]

I don't know why people are being hyperbolic saying you're spending 12 full seconds to do this or interrupting sleep.

In 6 seconds, a normal round of combat activity is walking 30 feet, attacking 1-2 times, and possibly taking another action. Casting an Action spell doesn't take a full 6 seconds. Obviously stealthing is out of the question and it isn't available in social settings

Generally agree, but I have some caveats. If you're in a crowded bar or something similar, people probably aren't going to notice/care that someone is frequently casting guidance unless they do something else to draw attention to themselves (e.g. buying a round of drinks for everyone in the bar or being the only tiefling in a dwarven bar). If the party is in a focused conversation with an npc or a group of npcs, constant casting of guidance would raise suspicions. One would be better off with enhance ability before a focused conversation.

In the context of stealth, the caster would be in a difficult position because of the frequent chanting. However, given the rules around surprise (i.e. surprise being handled individually), this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Clerics are generally the ones constantly casting guidance on themselves, so their passive perception would reduce the likelihood of them being surprised and they're probably already terrible at stealth due to medium or heavy armor. Additionally, if the party is spread out and everyone but the guidance spammer is taking a stealthy approach, the rest of the party could end up with a surprise round. Hell, one might, though likely won't, be able to convince a DM that the enemies are distracted by the caster's chanting, giving the rest of the party a chance to surround and surprise the enemies.

[ChampionWiggles]

If you're really wanting to limit the casting of Guidance, it's not outside of your realms to say that the spell doesn't work. The cleric has prayed to their deity so much that the deity just says "No, figure it out on your own!" and then no +1d4 bonus. Deities are fickle, so it's not outside the realm of possibility.

[Maxilian]

I would let it fly for a while.

After some time, the PC will start having a hard time speaking with their soar throat (making casting some spells a problem), also would make NPC have a.... "big view" of them.

[Segev]

As I was getting at in my little blurb on the last page, it's perfectly doable, and even a believable character quirk. It's noticeable, though, and will color how he's perceived. And likely something you have to give a rest to if you're going into a stealth situation.

My advice to DMs in general is to not be afraid of letting players use their powers. Getting +1d4 to a d20 roll is what having guidance does for you. Unless it specifically SHOULD NOT be something he's cast, why not let him have it ready to go? Having a magic weapon on hand is what shillelagh is meant for. If the player wants to RP having it always at the ready, how is that any worse than the fighter who carries his sword at the ready at all times?

Pick your battles, and err on the side of letting players have the minor benefits, because they're more likely to be cooperative if you have been permissive but fair when you have to be tough but fair.

[Legendairy]

As I was getting at in my little blurb on the last page, it's perfectly doable, and even a believable character quirk. It's noticeable, though, and will color how he's perceived. And likely something you have to give a rest to if you're going into a stealth situation.

My advice to DMs in general is to not be afraid of letting players use their powers. Getting +1d4 to a d20 roll is what having guidance does for you. Unless it specifically SHOULD NOT be something he's cast, why not let him have it ready to go? Having a magic weapon on hand is what shillelagh is meant for. If the player wants to RP having it always at the ready, how is that any worse than the fighter who carries his sword at the ready at all times?

Pick your battles, and err on the side of letting players have the minor benefits, because they're more likely to be cooperative if you have been permissive but fair when you have to be tough but fair.

To be fair, I have had characters ask if the cantrip (mage hand) could always be active and I let it fly, because, why not? But in all my years I have never had a Fighter/paladin/barbarian/ranger/rogue/cleric...ever say they always keep their weapon at the ready....very much YMMV.

Edit: to clarify I mean outside of a dangerous area/dungeon.

[Baptor]

Wanting to leave your character on an endless loop that makes them appear to be a religious fanatic in 24/7 conversation with their god makes the story head in a very definitive direction. Maybe that is what this player is going for, but I doubt it seriously.

This. In my experience, the only players who request such things are not in it for the RP, if you get my drift.

But hey I don't know his person, maybe they really are trying to RP a religious fanatic, or a paranoid person. For me as a DM, it comes down to player intent. Why does the player want to do this - or what makes them think they need to?

1. It's for RP reasons.
Like Galadhrim, I doubt this is the case, but if it is - neat - maybe we can work together to make this paranoid fanatic a really memorable character.

2. I'm scared of your dungeons.
If the PC has been nearly killed many times, maybe he feels like this is necessary to survive your game. Talk to the player about it. If you are running some kind of "roguelike" dungeon where instant death is around every corner - then maybe you should let them do it. If you didn't intend to scare the dickens out of them, maybe explain that not every battle is that bad - or maybe let them find a +1 club in the next treasure stash so they feel like they have a chance.

3. It's because they want to be OP to the max!
Some players just want to have the highest damage and the biggest stats evah! I don't really get it at all. If this is such a person, and you want them in your game, then I suggest implementing one of the controls others have mentioned, like making a save every so often or become fatigued from all the casting, etc. Personally I don't like munchkins in my games - and if they can't control their lust for power - they usually have to leave. It's only happened once or twice.

[Lord Haart]

"But that's why I play pazaak in my head. Because if you don't, you've left the door open. And anyone could walk right in.
If you're ever fighting someone who has the power over your mind... whether light or dark... play pazaak. Start listing hyperspace routes. Recite engine sequencers. And when they try to use their powers on you, suddenly it's not as easy as they thought. Jedi do it all the time, and when they walk in the dark places of your mind, they'll use it to hold you by the throat."


If there's something a character can do that doesn't cost resourses and gives a non-imagined, significant edge in a hostile environment, a sane character will probably train himself to keep it up habitually.

[BurgerBeast]

I would just say no. No one can keep this up, but everyone is more or less trying to.

[Zalabim]

There is even precedent: IIRC travelling at Fast speed imposes disadvantage on all of your perception checks, as well as making stealth impossible.
Since I was just quoting that precedent the other day, the rule for fast travel is -5 (so you can still get disadvantage for dim light), and it's more that moving slowly makes stealth possible (assuming that stealth is possible, if you catch my meaning.) The actual precedent is that you don't get passive perception at all, but you can devote your attention to other tasks while traveling.

I like to think of it this way. Once every minute, you pull out your phone and check it. Are you distracted during that whole minute, even when not looking at your phone? Doubtful. Are you distracted during the six seconds checking the phone? Probably. So, I'd probably rule it similar to others who roll a d10 when combat starts or when a trap happens to see how long the spell is still up with the caveat that on a 1, while your spell gets to be fresh, you were in the middle of casting it, therefore being distracted and take disadvantage on the relevant roll.
Speaking of checking phones, my radio station is having a contest right now so I'm encouraged to check my phone once an hour (to send a text), and I'm not distracted by it all the time, but I also go hours without checking my phone because I get distracted by something else. It'd be different if I was specifically tracking the time until the next time I'm supposed to check my phone.

Since the player would be casting spells 20% of the time, I personally would have the player roll a d5, and give them a 20% chance of being surprised.
Thing is when they're not casting the spell they're still tracking the time until they next need to cast the spell. Or they might forget. Mainly I just don't want to make this any more complicated than it has to be.

[Quietus]

Since I was just quoting that precedent the other day, the rule for fast travel is -5 (so you can still get disadvantage for dim light), and it's more that moving slowly makes stealth possible (assuming that stealth is possible, if you catch my meaning.) The actual precedent is that you don't get passive perception at all, but you can devote your attention to other tasks while traveling.

Speaking of checking phones, my radio station is having a contest right now so I'm encouraged to check my phone once an hour (to send a text), and I'm not distracted by it all the time, but I also go hours without checking my phone because I get distracted by something else. It'd be different if I was specifically tracking the time until the next time I'm supposed to check my phone.

Thing is when they're not casting the spell they're still tracking the time until they next need to cast the spell. Or they might forget. Mainly I just don't want to make this any more complicated than it has to be.

Now I kind of want to play a character who has a thirty-second hourglass (inscribed with prayers to their deity, of course), and goes around keeping these two cantrips up constantly when dungeon crawling. Really lean into the RP angle of "Always be prepared!", harangue other casters in the party to keep their duration-based cantrips running too. And if ever something goes wrong, will attempt to have a tactical conversation with the party to see what they can do to be ready for that "next time".

[Tanarii]

I think you need to read the rules on advantage and disadvantage, again. In The Book. The DM applying advantage where it is appropriate is right there, in the book. And here

It says the same thing in the PHB.Yup. Totally RAW. Besides setting DCs in the first place, application of advantage / disadvantage to account for circumstances is one of the more powerful RAW tools a DM has.

IIRC the designers have even commented on that being fully intended that it be used somewhat liberally, although if have to dig to find quotes so take that with a grain of salt.

---------

Another appropriate tool, although not a explicitly RAW one, would be for the DM to use is denying use of passive perception for being engrossed in a task as much as Navigating, Mapping, Foraging or Tracking. Personally I don't think this would qualify. But IMO it's always an appropriate extension of the RAW rules on marching order and the four explicit activities to also include outright denying Passive Perception for being in the wrong location to see or being involved in an engrossing activity.

----------

Adding levels of exhaustion is IMO punishing for a short period of time, anything less than an hour or so. Casting is unlikely to be as tiring as taking the Dash action for more than Con modifier rounds, for a RAW example of a fatiguing activity. Or swinging a sword around, which doesn't have a hard RAW time limit.


(Divided up because only the first section is a direct response to KorvinStarmast)

[TheFryingPen]

I see no reason to ban it. Constantly casting Shillelagh is comparable to a fighter always wielding his shield and/or weapon(s). Constantly casting Guidance could very well be a short prayer / chant or for druids a short breather to take in wisdom from the near nature.

Since you'd usually cast the spells every 10 rounds I'd give Shillelagh a 1d10 duration when a fight starts and Guidance a one in ten chance to fail (since it has to end before you re-apply it).

Of course I'd expect strange reactions to this in social settings, but as long as you're traveling dangerous roads or exploring dungeons this seems very reasonable to do (with the downside being announcing your approach, making stealthy surprises impossible and informing everyone around that that PC is a spell caster). You could say a PC will get tired or a sore throat from this but then one could argue martials would get tired from wearing their armor, shields and weapons too. I'd say adventurers who practice magic spells for a living manage speaking a few words every minute.

During a rest or while being busy for a longer time (searching a room, investigating something, being engaged in a conversation...) I'd not allow it / warn the player that disrupting his activity will result in a penalty.

[danzibr]

Sure.
But the constant vigilance and motion is exhausting.

You have one level of fatigue.
I like it.

[ATHATH]

"But that's why I play pazaak in my head. Because if you don't, you've left the door open. And anyone could walk right in.
If you're ever fighting someone who has the power over your mind... whether light or dark... play pazaak. Start listing hyperspace routes. Recite engine sequencers. And when they try to use their powers on you, suddenly it's not as easy as they thought. Jedi do it all the time, and when they walk in the dark places of your mind, they'll use it to hold you by the throat."


If there's something a character can do that doesn't cost resourses and gives a non-imagined, significant edge in a hostile environment, a sane character will probably train himself to keep it up habitually.
Nice KOTOR 2 reference.

You've played it with the Restored Content mod, right?

[JakOfAllTirades]

{scrubbed}

[Tanarii]

{scrubbed}
This idea isn't exactly new to these 5e forums.

[strangebloke]

{scrubbed}

Any level of "I am always doing 'x'" is always wrong. DND requires you to explicitly state when you're doing something.

It's like 3e people saying "I am always detecting evil."

But you should let players cast it, even as a reaction to another player declaring an action.

"I go to pick the chest's lock"

"Wait! Bahamut Blesses you!"

[langal]

I would. But you actually have to tell me in real life every 30 seconds. The exhaustive and annoying monotony in real life would mirror the experience in the game world. After a couple minutes, you would see how impractical this idea is.

[JackPhoenix]

Any level of "I am always doing 'x'" is always wrong. DND requires you to explicitly state when you're doing something.

It's like 3e people saying "I am always detecting evil."

But you should let players cast it, even as a reaction to another player declaring an action.

"I go to pick the chest's lock"

"Wait! Bahamut Blesses you!"

Bahamut doesn't support thievery. Your request for divine assistance has been denied. Have a nice day!

[Dalebert]

There's a moderate position that has been brought up several times. It depends on how long they're doing this. There's no way I will let them say that every moment all day all the time they're doing this.

* During a dungeon crawl: reasonable

* Traveling through potentially dangerous city streets of at night, for less than an hour or so: reasonable

* A trek across the wilderness that takes many hours: not reasonable

My rogue makes a point to keep invisible mage hand up during dungeon crawls and other high tension situations. He'll typically hold something with it like a torch, either lit or not depending on whether trying to stealth. He puts a wooden triangle around the base near the top so it won't go out if dropped. If unlit, there's often someone near the back with a candle and it can be lit quickly. He'll try to remember to keep it going but if the object drops, that's a signal to recast.

[Tanarii]

My rogue makes a point to keep invisible mage hand up during dungeon crawls and other high tension situations. He'll typically hold something with it like a torch, either lit or not depending on whether trying to stealth. He puts a wooden triangle around the base near the top so it won't go out if dropped. If unlit, there's often someone near the back with a candle and it can be lit quickly. He'll try to remember to keep it going but if the object drops, that's a signal to recast.
Recasting Mage Hand causes the old hand to disappear. It'd drop the object every time you cast it.

[Dalebert]

Recasting Mage Hand causes the old hand to disappear. It'd drop the object every time you cast it.

Wow, really? REALLY? Are you one of those "Gotcha!" DMs who takes glee in spoiling even minor amusements with rules lawyering?

First sentence: "The spectral hand appears at a point you choose within range." Clearly it can appear in the same spot and continue holding the torch.

[Willie the Duck]

Wow, really? REALLY? Are you one of those "Gotcha!" DMs who takes glee in spoiling even minor amusements with rules lawyering?

First sentence: "The spectral hand appears at a point you choose within range." Clearly it can appear in the same spot and continue holding the torch.

I am pretty sure about half the thread considers 'I always have X up' to be on par with DM gotchas in terms of rules lawyering. Regardless, having the new hand catching what the old hand was carrying is a reasonable, but can't-be-assumed interpretation of the spell description.

[Tanarii]

Wow, really? REALLY? Are you one of those "Gotcha!" DMs who takes glee in spoiling even minor amusements with rules lawyering?"It vanishes if it's ever more than 30 feet away from you or if you cast this spell again."

It literally says recasting the spell causes the hand to disappear. There is nothing gotcha about it. Only reading comprehension.


First sentence: "The spectral hand appears at a point you choose within range." Clearly it can appear in the same spot and continue holding the torch.What are you doing, having the hand throw the torch in the air before it disappears when you start casting the spell?

[Hooligan]

I would permit this simply to prevent players from obnoxiously petitioning to use Guidance before every toss of the dice.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Any level of "I am always doing 'x'" is always wrong. DND requires you to explicitly state when you're doing something.

It's like 3e people saying "I am always detecting evil."

But you should let players cast it, even as a reaction to another player declaring an action.

"I go to pick the chest's lock"

"Wait! Bahamut Blesses you!"

Amen to that.

[Uberprime]

I would have the material components become an issue. Yes they are technically free, but I would have such excessive use of the totem/symbol/magic focus , exhaust it after awhile. Maybe break the focus.

[Zalabim]

Bahamut doesn't support thievery. Your request for divine assistance has been denied. Have a nice day!
But Bahamut, it's my chest. I just accidentally locked the key inside.

[the_brazenburn]

Any level of "I am always doing 'x'" is always wrong. DND requires you to explicitly state when you're doing something.

It's like 3e people saying "I am always detecting evil."

But you should let players cast it, even as a reaction to another player declaring an action.

"I go to pick the chest's lock"

"Wait! Bahamut Blesses you!"

"Right, so, we're going to enter the cave and then..."
"You instantly drop dead of oxygen starvation."
"Wait, what?"
"None of you declared that you were breathing."
"Well, I think you could just assume that we are breathing constantly."
"Nope, D&D requires you to explicitly state whether you are doing something. For that matter, you'd all be dead from your hearts not beating, as well. So you're doubly dead!"

[UrielAwakened]

This topic reminded me why I DM.

It's because I can't stand other DMs.

[strangebloke]

I would have the material components become an issue. Yes they are technically free, but I would have such excessive use of the totem/symbol/magic focus , exhaust it after awhile. Maybe break the focus.
I would consider this to be a breaking of Grod's law. You aren't making it impossible, you're just making it annoying.

"Right, so, we're going to enter the cave and then..."
"You instantly drop dead of oxygen starvation."
"Wait, what?"
"None of you declared that you were breathing."
"Well, I think you could just assume that we are breathing constantly."
"Nope, D&D requires you to explicitly state whether you are doing something. For that matter, you'd all be dead from your hearts not beating, as well. So you're doubly dead!"
:Eyeroll

Yes, certain things can be assumed. Mostly bodily functions and standard adventuring nonsense. The important thing to note is that these things are so obvious that you don't even have to say 'i keep breathing.' Whereas for this situation, a player does have to say "I always cast guidance.'

And it's dumb because such characters will inevitably want to have it both ways. They'll want it to be assumed that if they are hiding, for example, that they stop casting guidance.

Casting spells, even rituals or cantrips, must be explicit. I do allow players to recall something a bunch of times in a row, like: 'i cast alarm twelve times.' but none of this "my character is perfectly multitasking at all times" nonsense.

[Chaosmancer]

"It vanishes if it's ever more than 30 feet away from you or if you cast this spell again."

It literally says recasting the spell causes the hand to disappear. There is nothing gotcha about it. Only reading comprehension.

What are you doing, having the hand throw the torch in the air before it disappears when you start casting the spell?

This particular thing I just see as a DM being pedantic.

Because having the new hand hold the thing the old hand was carrying doesn't break anything. And, there are dozens of equally reasonable things you could do to combat this. 1) Hold the item yourself, 2) have someone else hold the item, 3) set the item gently down, 4) juggle the item by tossing and catching it ect

So, a DM insisting on breaking this down when the end result is the same and forcing a more convoluted but "correct" way of doing it just smacks of being aggravating.

Similar to a DM insisting the monk declare they let go of their staff with one hand to bonus action punch, and then declare they grab the staff with their off hand again so they are wielding it two handed in case of OAs. Yes, it is more technically correct,but it is a uselesd amount of formality that we can just shorthand.

[Segev]

If you're playing as loosely as the writers wrote the rules for planar binding, just assuming they have the spells up when they need them is not unreasonable.

Are your battles so delicately balanced that the difference between a round to cast the spell before beating things up and having cast it ten seconds ago so they're ready to deal damage on round one is really game-breaking? That the inability to say, "I blow my guidance on this skill check," because you were watching and waiting for them to be less-than-dilligent in recasting it, is so critical to providing "challenge" to your party?

[Tanarii]

This particular thing I just see as a DM being pedantic.
Applying a rule that can only have being written to prevent exactly the scenario being talked about isn't being pedantic. It's following the rule as clearly intended.

If you want to house rule against literal RAW and clear RAI to make a cantrip more powerful/useful, go for it. But don't try to disparage those who choose to use it as written and intended.

[Zalabim]

This particular thing I just see as a DM being pedantic.

Because having the new hand hold the thing the old hand was carrying doesn't break anything. And, there are dozens of equally reasonable things you could do to combat this. 1) Hold the item yourself, 2) have someone else hold the item, 3) set the item gently down, 4) juggle the item by tossing and catching it ect

So, a DM insisting on breaking this down when the end result is the same and forcing a more convoluted but "correct" way of doing it just smacks of being aggravating.

Similar to a DM insisting the monk declare they let go of their staff with one hand to bonus action punch, and then declare they grab the staff with their off hand again so they are wielding it two handed in case of OAs. Yes, it is more technically correct,but it is a uselesd amount of formality that we can just shorthand.

Speaking of technically correct, and since it is not obvious, casting Mage Hand only summons the hand. That is all. You can then use your action to control the hand after that. It isn't one of the spells that says "When you cast the spell and as an Action on your turn," like Telekinesis.

[No brains]

This topic reminded me why I DM.

It's because I can't stand other DMs.

Yeah, this thread doesn't make joining another group look fun.

[SodaQueen]

Applying a rule that can only have being written to prevent exactly the scenario being talked about isn't being pedantic. It's following the rule as clearly intended.

If you want to house rule against literal RAW and clear RAI to make a cantrip more powerful/useful, go for it. But don't try to disparage those who choose to use it as written and intended.No, it's definitely being pedantic.

[Dalebert]

Applying a rule that can only have being written to prevent exactly the scenario being talked about isn't being pedantic.

"Wait... what if they're carrying something and they continue to carry that thing for more than a minute by just recasting the spell?"

"OMG! Can you imagine the things they could get away with using just a simple cantrip if they were able to continue levitating something for longer than the duration simply by recasting it?"

What's obviously the intent is to prevent you from having more than one mage hand at a time. Now if you want to play the pedantics game, it doesn't say "If you start to cast mage hand". You haven't cast mage hand again until you have finished casting it, at which point the new hand appears and the old hand disappear simultaneously.

[Beelzebubba]

Players doing this are basically trying to BS their way into 'winning'. If it was meant to always be on, it would always be on in the rules. It's meant to consume an action or bonus action, and therefore sometimes be unavailable.

If you can't handle a character that has some abilities that are sometimes on and sometimes off, then pick a Champion.

Saying I ALWAYS CAST IT is a sign of someone who will be an incredibly sore loser and pedantic rules lawyer at other areas of the game as well. That attitude (and pretty much anyone espousing it in this thread) wouldn't be welcomed in our group, by me OR any of the other players. We're too grown up for that nonsense.

[Trampaige]

I would let it fly for a while.

After some time, the PC will start having a hard time speaking with their soar throat (making casting some spells a problem), also would make NPC have a.... "big view" of them.

Saying a few words every minute for hours a day would make them lose their voice?

Really?

Have you ever worked a job that requires talking to people?

[Tanarii]

No, it's definitely being pedantic.
I suppose it's also pe antic that if you cast a concentration spell, the one you were concentrating on ends? :smallyuk:

Which has the effect that you cannot use True Strike with attack roll spells with concentration, like Witch Bolt or Vampiric Touch.

You may not like the RAW, but a basic application of it in a clearly intended way is not pedantic. Trying to claim that is on par with me claiming a player asking for it to be house-ruled away, or a DM choosing to do so, a power-gaming munchkin.

[SodaQueen]

I suppose it's also pe antic that if you cast a concentration spell, the one you were concentrating on ends? :smallyuk:Nope. But what you said before sure was.


You may not like the RAW, but a basic application of it in a clearly intended way is not pedantic. Trying to claim that is on par with me claiming a player asking for it to be house-ruled away, or a DM choosing to do so, a power-gaming munchkin.You sure like false equivalency don't you?

[Chaosmancer]

Applying a rule that can only have being written to prevent exactly the scenario being talked about isn't being pedantic. It's following the rule as clearly intended.

If you want to house rule against literal RAW and clear RAI to make a cantrip more powerful/useful, go for it. But don't try to disparage those who choose to use it as written and intended.

What is so powerful?

Having the mage hand give the item to the player (like the torch being discussed) is only bad if the item is dangerous to touch. Otherwise, same result.

Setting on the ground gently is only bad if the item can't touch the ground, like if it were magically charged. Otherwise, same result.

If memory serves (I'm away from the books) mage hand can move 30 ft a turn, meaning it can move 300 ft in the minute duration.

So, this becomes an incredibly powerful rule if you have an item that is too dangerous to hold even through gloves, will react in some way to the ground, does not react to mage hand in a similiar manner and has to be moved more than 300 ft... So... Pretty much never.

The reason the previous mage hand disappears isn't to prevent people from holding the same item, it is to prevent multiple mage hands to be active simultaneously since mage hand isn't concentration.



Speaking of technically correct, and since it is not obvious, casting Mage Hand only summons the hand. That is all. You can then use your action to control the hand after that. It isn't one of the spells that says "When you cast the spell and as an Action on your turn," like Telekinesis.

That's weird, guess it almost never comes up since mage hand is mostly used outside of combat.

I'll have to think about how I feel about that. I've never had people use mage hand (despite people often taking it) so I'd probably not enforce it if they had a cool idea that used the spell. I want to actually have mage hand used.

[Ganymede]

One way you could handle this is by just having your player roll a 1d10 during initiative. The result is how many rounds they have left of the spell in effect, with a 0 being that the spell coincidentally ran out at the onset of combat.

[strangebloke]

I think the real reason why this one grinds my gears is that its fundamentally a way of the player telling the DM to keep track of something on the player's sheet. "Don't forget, DM, that I'm always casting guidance."

Thanks for reminding me, bucko, cause I ain't got enough to keep track of over here.

[mephnick]

I think the real reason why this one grinds my gears is that its fundamentally a way of the player telling the DM to keep track of something on the player's sheet. "Don't forget, DM, that I'm always casting guidance."

Thanks for reminding me, bucko, cause I ain't got enough to keep track of over here.

Pretty much. Any time a player asks me to track one of their powers, or remind them of one of their class abilities, I tell them "That isn't my job. Figure it out."

I never even read the character section of the PHB at more than a glance until 3 years in when I had to make my own character.

Not. My. Job.

[Segev]

I think the real reason why this one grinds my gears is that its fundamentally a way of the player telling the DM to keep track of something on the player's sheet. "Don't forget, DM, that I'm always casting guidance."

Thanks for reminding me, bucko, cause I ain't got enough to keep track of over here.

This is more the opposite of doing that. This is saying, "Assume it's on." Unless the DM is deliberately tracking whether they've been doing it, assuming it's on means the player just uses the mechanics of it being on/available. No insisting the DM remember anything.

[Contrast]

This is more the opposite of doing that. This is saying, "Assume it's on." Unless the DM is deliberately tracking whether they've been doing it, assuming it's on means the player just uses the mechanics of it being on/available. No insisting the DM remember anything.

Except there are consequences for constantly casting a spell which may be relevant so the DM needs to keep this in mind. Its not necessarily any more taxing on the DM than the player telling you they're wearing a weird costume or something of course which I do feel somewhat falls under the category of things DMs just need to work with but I agree the player should be looking to try and be more helpful about it.

Its honestly never been a problem in any game I've taken part in because we generally accept our characters are not always operating to 100% efficiency. They get distracted and bored like real people do so no-one has ever thought it remotely appropriate to create a character who thought it was a good use of their time to constantly cast cantrips. They're usually reserved for important/dangerous situations and as such this argument has never come up.

[Tanarii]

You sure like false equivalency don't you?There is no false equivalency. I pointed out the written rule. So far three people (including you) have been upset enough at me for pointing out the written rule that they have insulted me.

I have no problem with someone that wants to house rule it. But it's best to do that from a position of knowing what the rule says first.

Attacking someone for pointing out what a rule says isn't the route to go when you don't like it.

[Naanomi]

I haven’t read the whole thread, so apologies if this was said before, but...

I’ve personally seen people cast the same three buffs (Bard songs or whatever) in MMO raids for hours on end at a much quicker pace than once every 30 seconds

[Scripten]

Pretty much. Any time a player asks me to track one of their powers, or remind them of one of their class abilities, I tell them "That isn't my job. Figure it out."

This is why I houserule the crap out of Wild Magic Sorcerers and summoners. I don't have the attention nor mental energy to babysit my players' class mechanics. Inspiration is bad enough.

[strangebloke]

This is more the opposite of doing that. This is saying, "Assume it's on." Unless the DM is deliberately tracking whether they've been doing it, assuming it's on means the player just uses the mechanics of it being on/available. No insisting the DM remember anything.
Except, here's the thing: In my experience, a player who wants an effect like that to be 'always on' is going to forget about it when its inconvenient for him.

For example, I had a player who was using silence to aid himself in sneaking about a dungeon. When he got jumped and had to roll initiative, he tried to use guidance. I had to kindly remind him that he was inside a silence bubble and was using concentration.

Another player was upset when goblins sneaked up on the camp because he'd had alarm set up. Except that he'd never said that he had set alarm up. He said it was always on when they were camping. Then in the next town, it went off

But more to the point, I just prefer it when players are paying enough attention to what's going on that they know when they need to cast whatever it is they need to cast. It really isn't that hard to say "I'm giving you guidance" or "guidance!"

I haven’t read the whole thread, so apologies if this was said before, but...

I’ve personally seen people cast the same three buffs (Bard songs or whatever) in MMO raids for hours on end at a much quicker pace than once every 30 seconds

Well, first of all casting a spell is a little more taxing than mashing the same key every 5-10 seconds. It unquantifiable how much more taxing, but it is a little more at least. Secondly, adventuring is a very high-stress situation, and you actually don't want to be always casting spells, either because there's monsters about you don't want to alert or there areI'm not in the camp that is going to hand out exhaustion levels or anything.

And once again, I hae no problem with the player casting guidance every 30 seconds. I'm not going to hand out exhaustion or disadvantage or whatever. But if your character is paying enough attention, so should you.

[Scripten]

Secondly, adventuring is a very high-stress situation, and you actually don't want to be always casting spells, either because there's monsters about you don't want to alert or there areI'm not in the camp that is going to hand out exhaustion levels or anything.

And once again, I hae no problem with the player casting guidance every 30 seconds. I'm not going to hand out exhaustion or disadvantage or whatever. But if your character is paying enough attention, so should you.

For me, anything above giving disadvantage (-5) to passive perception is too much penalty for this. If the caster isn't worried about looking around the dungeon, then they can cast cantrips all they want. I'd also give disadvantage on stealth checks to the caster, I suppose, but that goes for any verbal spell.

[jas61292]

To answer the initial question, no. No I would not allow this. That's it. That's my answer.

But the rules say....

The rules say that what I say goes. And as this is dumb, I chose not to allow it regardless of what other rules say about it. It is stupid, looks ridiculous, would get annoying, and no party that I would run a game for would tolerate such a character. So if a player asked me if their character could do this, I would say no. And if they told me or was important to that character concept, I would request the amend that concept or create a new character.

Rules debates can be interesting, but certain things are best left to forum discussion and out of play. These kind of things that, by some interpretations, may be legal without downside, but are stupid, annoying, and immersion breaking in play, have no place at my table.

[Segev]

From the "I wouldn't allow this" camp, I just have one question: Why not? What is it you want to have happen that this prevents?

Or is there a reason other than game balance or whatever plans you have for doing stuff to the party that makes you say "no?"

[strangebloke]

From the "I wouldn't allow this" camp, I just have one question: Why not? What is it you want to have happen that this prevents?

Or is there a reason other than game balance or whatever plans you have for doing stuff to the party that makes you say "no?"

It's completely an out-of-character reason. I've had players want to run with Schrodinger's Guidance where they both have it available whenever they want it (even if that was impossible) and never cast it at an inconvenient time.

In character, cast it as often as you want, for any or not reason. It's a powerful cantrip, and you should flaunt it if you got it. Even cast it retroactively, if it would have been reasonable to do so. (IE, before you kick down the door)

Just apply conscious thought about whether or not you could've cast it before applying the bonus. That's really all I'm asking.

[Pelle]

I don't think I would say no to it, just accept it and warn the player how I would likely rule the consequences of constant spellcasting for stealthy and social situations. However, I suspect I would not want to keep playing long with a player who does not care about how the character appears in the fiction, and only want to 'win the game'...

[SodaQueen]

There is no false equivalency. I pointed out the written rule. So far three people (including you) have been upset enough at me for pointing out the written rule that they have insulted me.

I have no problem with someone that wants to house rule it. But it's best to do that from a position of knowing what the rule says first.

Attacking someone for pointing out what a rule says isn't the route to go when you don't like it....I haven't insulted you? And I assure you, I'm not upset in the slightest. I'm simply pointing out that you were indeed being quite pedantic (and still stand by that, but I'm willing to agree to disagree). I would offer advice that you should perhaps, develop some thicker natural armor.

But regardless, I do apologize for any offense my words may have caused. An attacking tone was certainly not my intent.

[dmteeter]

From the "I wouldn't allow this" camp, I just have one question: Why not? What is it you want to have happen that this prevents?

Or is there a reason other than game balance or whatever plans you have for doing stuff to the party that makes you say "no?"

For the same reason i wouldn't allow a player to state that once every 24 seconds he attacks each square around him. It just does't make sense.

If i did allow a player to do this i would make him announce every 30 seconds that he's casting it and make him keep track of the seconds just to see how long it went before he realized how annoying he was being. If he continued to do it for the whole game which i'm sure would annoy my players i just wouldn't invite him back to my table.

[Snowbluff]

This is more the opposite of doing that. This is saying, "Assume it's on." Unless the DM is deliberately tracking whether they've been doing it, assuming it's on means the player just uses the mechanics of it being on/available. No insisting the DM remember anything.

This. Strangebloke's problem is that he deals with bad players. Most of us don't live in a world where we assume people act in bad faith more often than not.

Furthermore, Guidance is a simple spell with non-combat applications. If you, a cleric and/or devotee to a deity, asking your deity for Guidance in what you're about to do is so offensive, you should take the time to smite those that disagree. It's like the equivalent of keeping prayer beads in your hands and praying to yourself.

If you, as a DM, are so angry that someone would do this, that's entirely on you. The player is applying their character to their greatest effect in a non-game breaking manner. You're the one with the conniption interfering with this.

[Segev]

It's completely an out-of-character reason. I've had players want to run with Schrodinger's Guidance where they both have it available whenever they want it (even if that was impossible) and never cast it at an inconvenient time.

In character, cast it as often as you want, for any or not reason. It's a powerful cantrip, and you should flaunt it if you got it. Even cast it retroactively, if it would have been reasonable to do so. (IE, before you kick down the door)

Just apply conscious thought about whether or not you could've cast it before applying the bonus. That's really all I'm asking.When would it be inconvenient to have it up?

I mean, sure, if you cast another Concentration spell without using it, it ends immediately, but it being up doesn't prevent you from casting it. I guess I'm just not sure what circumstances you're talking about.

I just would apply some common sense. If, for instance, they tried to apply guidance to something after having specified they're sneaking through, I'd remind them that they were sneaking. Was he really casting a spell - spoiling their stealth - this entire time? If he says "yes," I'll keep that in mind for the future. This will impact their stealth efforts. (Though I'd probably just say, "After about 45 seconds, Bob recites another prayer. In the quiet with which you've been moving, it's shockingly loud.") Then Bob's player will likely agree that, no, he wouldn't do it here and now.


For the same reason i wouldn't allow a player to state that once every 24 seconds he attacks each square around him. It just does't make sense.

If i did allow a player to do this i would make him announce every 30 seconds that he's casting it and make him keep track of the seconds just to see how long it went before he realized how annoying he was being. If he continued to do it for the whole game which i'm sure would annoy my players i just wouldn't invite him back to my table.
Y'know, in a life-or-death situation, such behaviors stop being annoying. I could easily interrupt a game every 30s to do it in real time. I don't even need to really get the GM's attention, as long as we agree that I can just say, "I cast guidance," IRL in a conversational tone to represent doing it IC.

Heck, for fairness's sake, we could even have a minute-glass (hour glass but only 60s) that I turn over every time I say it. Now I have a V and S component (and F, but that's cosmetic)! If it's run out when he calls for a check, I don't have it up.

But I could probably keep it up most of the time, and if the party got annoyed with me OOC, I'd ask if I could just flip it OOC and not disturb others. IC, I doubt anybody would actually bemoan it too badly, and if they did, I'd tell them they could stuff it and that I'm not gimping myself just to make them slightly less irked. If they have a solid reason - "I cast guidance," *flips the minute-glass* - that I need to stop, then I'll consider the cost-benefit.

But in the end, it's useful, even moderately strong, but the only time it's going to come up as different from just casting it before rolling a skill check is in the reflexive checks, like Perception.

[Jophiel]

I haven’t read the whole thread, so apologies if this was said before, but...

I’ve personally seen people cast the same three buffs (Bard songs or whatever) in MMO raids for hours on end at a much quicker pace than once every 30 seconds
I played a bard in Everquest back when twisting songs meant actually working the keyboard on a constant basis. I don't know if it really compares since much of that was just rote muscle memory but if it had required speech and active concentration on my part, etc then perception penalties would be warranted. If you're referring to the effect upon the MMORPG character then, meh -- video games.

My own inclination would be to disallow 24/7 casting on the basis that I still consider divine magic to come from divine sources and said sources would be unfavorably inclined towards a caster who was pestering them continually and without need, "just in case". I would also figure that the one action casting time allows for a prayer more lengthy than "Bless you" such as "Divine Guy, please grant your favor upon myself as I attempt this deed in your name. Amen" (with the appropriate touching). So continual castings of spells for no real reason would be inadvisable from both a practical and a theological perspective.

[strangebloke]

When would it be inconvenient to have it up?

I mean, sure, if you cast another Concentration spell without using it, it ends immediately, but it being up doesn't prevent you from casting it. I guess I'm just not sure what circumstances you're talking about.

I just would apply some common sense. If, for instance, they tried to apply guidance to something after having specified they're sneaking through, I'd remind them that they were sneaking. Was he really casting a spell - spoiling their stealth - this entire time? If he says "yes," I'll keep that in mind for the future. This will impact their stealth efforts. (Though I'd probably just say, "After about 45 seconds, Bob recites another prayer. In the quiet with which you've been moving, it's shockingly loud.") Then Bob's player will likely agree that, no, he wouldn't do it here and now.

You're not paying attention.

Yes.

I could apply common sense. I could tell them "You're sneaking, no guidance." or "You're concentrating on silence, no guidance" or whatever.

But that's work for me. I have to make sure that they don't accidentally buff themselves in an unreasonable manner. And its a pain, because they're not saying that they're casting it, they're just taking the bonus. I'm taking down everyone's initiative, drawing the battle map, laying down miniatures, and now I have to watch Gary's dice, too? Blech. Is it a huge deal? Not really. But what's the upside to allowing them to have guidance always on?

Well, nothing, really. If they're paying attention, they'll have guidance whenever they need it, especially as I allow retroactive casting of it if they ask for it.

If guidance is 'always on' the DM has to catch incorrect applications of it. If guidance is cast as stated by the player, the DM has to adress issues as they come up. The former is much harder than the latter. I've got enough to do.

[Segev]

If they're paying attention, they'll have guidance whenever they need it, especially as I allow retroactive casting of it if they ask for it.

There's no functional difference between allowing retroactive casting and allowing them to keep recasting it. :smallconfused:

[Millface]

The only time "always on" really worked was back in previous editions when spells might last all day. In 2e, I made a note with the DM that I cast stoneskin on myself every morning, and that was fine, I marked out the spell slot and always had it up until it was removed from me.

In 5e, there's really nothing that works like that except for a few edge cases. Reasserting control over undead is one that I'd allow, for example, because it's a daily routine.

It's not functionally reasonable for someone to cast something, even something that's easy to cast, every 30 seconds. Try it yourself. Tell yourself that you're going to say "gogglethorp" every thirty seconds and see how long you can do it. A couple hours, maybe, before something happens and you forget what you were even doing and you look down and suddenly an hour passed and you didn't say it.

There's been alot of talk about guidance lately and all I can say is that I'm glad my players don't seem to really care for it. It seems to be causing more trouble than it's worth at some tables.

And as has been stated, always on also puts the discretion of what something like guidance applies to and what it doesn't on the player, instead of the DM, and I don't care for that at all. Even good people will fudge rolls sometimes and you have to watch for it, everyone wants to succeed, it's not fun to fail over and over again. If the player was given this, they'd more than likely misuse it.

More than anything, why is it so hard to just say no, not at my table, sorry? If I let players have everything they ever asked for I'd be in for a wonky experience for sure.

[Millface]

There's no functional difference between allowing retroactive casting and allowing them to keep recasting it. :smallconfused:

Yes, there is. If it's retroactively cast, the DM knows it's being applied to this specific action and if the spell shouldn't apply for any reason you can say no. If you allow it to be recast and assumed always on, the player is just going to add the d4 to the roll no matter what they're doing, whether it should apply or not, and you, as the DM, have too much other stuff to focus on to catch that every time it's done.

If I absolutely had to say yes to this because a player made a big to-do about it, I'd just flat increase every DC for everything by 2 without telling you. There you go, have your thing. I'm going to keep my game balance, though.

[strangebloke]

There's no functional difference between allowing retroactive casting and allowing them to keep recasting it. :smallconfused:


Yes, there is. If it's retroactively cast, the DM knows it's being applied to this specific action and if the spell shouldn't apply for any reason you can say no. If you allow it to be recast and assumed always on, the player is just going to add the d4 to the roll no matter what they're doing, whether it should apply or not, and you, as the DM, have too much other stuff to focus on to catch that every time it's done.

Millface mostly hit the nail on the head here. It's a 'ask forgiveness rather than permission' kind of thing. Hey DM, can I add guidance? Sure. But don't just start adding bonuses from spells without telling me what you're doing.

It's also different in that if the party is surprised, you might not be allowed to have shillegah or guidance up.


If I absolutely had to say yes to this because a player made a big to-do about it, I'd just flat increase every DC for everything by 2 without telling you. There you go, have your thing. I'm going to keep my game balance, though.

Don't do this. Game balance is whatever, and guidance can be applied to most checks anyway. Don't punish your players for taking a strong option.

[Kadesh]

Players take 1 of like 4 classes or a feat to get a +1d4 to every check at the cost of concentration elsewhere. Most "DM's" (emphasis on Master, apparently) piping up in this thread; I'm gonna punish them.

Makes me actually sick.

[Willie the Duck]

Players take 1 of like 4 classes or a feat to get a +1d4 to every check at the cost of concentration elsewhere. Most "DM's" (emphasis on Master, apparently) piping up in this thread; I'm gonna punish them.

Makes me actually sick.

It kind of defeats the purpose to try and lecture others on posturing power fantasies by taking on a posturing holier-than-thou motif. Unless your goal is to draw derision, this seems to be a counterproductive tactic.

Regardless, that's not what seems to be happening on this thread. People are genuinely trying to debate whether setting up the scenario where the player pre-indicates (and without continuously stating 'has it been a minute? If so I recast Guidance.' continuously until everyone agrees to go play something else) is reasonable, verisimilitude breaking, and or too burdensome to be dealt with. I have seen (entirely too many) threads one could couch in terms of 'let's all gripe about Players, they're always trying to get away with stuff'/'let's gripe about DMs, they're always trying to keep their players down.' This doesn't seem to be one of those. Instead, people are having a legitimate discussion about whether automating a spellcasting process is reasonable. Exactly what is missing from this discussion that you think ought to be here?

Oh, and a rule of thumb: on forums, half the people who are talking about DMing are usually players/usually players. And even with that, most people here haven't identified themselves one way or the other. What you are referencing is a legitimate issue that simply doesn't seem to be the case here.

[follacchioso]

These are cleric cantrips, so I would say that the divinity of this character would get pretty annoyed after a while.
Moreover imagine if the whole order of clerics from the same divinity would cast the same cantrips every 30 seconds... Quite a nice concert :-)

[Segev]

These are cleric cantrips, so I would say that the divinity of this character would get pretty annoyed after a while.
Moreover imagine if the whole order of clerics from the same divinity would cast the same cantrips every 30 seconds... Quite a nice concert :-)

If it actually rose to the level of annoyance, cantrips wouldn't be something you can cast at will. Trying to add a "not really at will, but only until the DM says you can't anymore" clause is not really playing with the RAW or the RAI as presented. Cantrips really are meant to be spammable.

[KorvinStarmast]

These are cleric cantrips, so I would say that the divinity of this character would get pretty annoyed after a while.
Moreover imagine if the whole order of clerics from the same divinity would cast the same cantrips every 30 seconds... Quite a nice concert :-)
Hmm, this is OT, but as I read your name, it looks Italian, or nearly so, but I can't quite parse it. Portuguese, maybe?

A nice concert only if they are all chanting it on pitch and in the same key. Otherwise, cacophony. :smalleek:

[xroads]

I'd probably allow a player to constantly cast spells like guidance and/or shillelagh. It makes a certain sense. The priest marching along while muttering constant prayers to his god is a popular enough imagery.

However, I'd probably also have the cleric make perception checks at a disadvantage. After all, he's probably distracted.

And he would also be at a disadvantage when it comes party stealth checks. Fortunately, this last one probably isn't much of an issue since the cleric's armor is probably already providing the same disadvantage.

[Jophiel]

If it actually rose to the level of annoyance, cantrips wouldn't be something you can cast at will.
I think there's plenty of reasonable middle ground between "I cast it 24/7 forever" and "You're never allowed to cast it" that favors the former without getting to that extreme. And I'm rather skeptical that RAI is "Guidance grants a permanent forever bonus"

[Knaight]

Players take 1 of like 4 classes or a feat to get a +1d4 to every check at the cost of concentration elsewhere. Most "DM's" (emphasis on Master, apparently) piping up in this thread; I'm gonna punish them.

Makes me actually sick.

Basically nobody has an issue with the mechanical side of this - it's the setting verisimilitude side, completely absent from your post, which is causing the reaction. There's also nothing that can be reasonably construed as punishment. Not getting to treat spells with a 1 minute casting time as if they had a 24 hour casting time isn't a punishment.

[Kadesh]

Basically nobody has an issue with the mechanical side of this - it's the setting verisimilitude side, completely absent from your post, which is causing the reaction. There's also nothing that can be reasonably construed as punishment. Not getting to treat spells with a 1 minute casting time as if they had a 24 hour casting time isn't a punishment.

What part of exhaustion is gained from mumbling religious mumbojumbo and flicking gangsigns?

[Chaosmancer]

There is no false equivalency. I pointed out the written rule. So far three people (including you) have been upset enough at me for pointing out the written rule that they have insulted me.

I have no problem with someone that wants to house rule it. But it's best to do that from a position of knowing what the rule says first.

Attacking someone for pointing out what a rule says isn't the route to go when you don't like it.

I apoligize for insulting you, I didn't mean offense. I'm pedantic quite often IRL and it isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The tone of your reply to the poster with the mage hand story sounded like a "Well, actually..." and I didn't see the reasoning behind why it was a sticking point.



Back to the OP, I think of it like this. I have no problem when a player uses Guidance before a declared action, and that covers 90% of all guidance uses.

Why have it "always on" then? You are either looking for a bonus to initiative to an unexpected combat (because a combat you knew was coming could be guidanced normally) or perception for hidden enemies. But, I often use passive perception anyways, because most of my players have bad habits when I ask for perception rolls and they all roll low. From "I ready my weapons and look supiciously around" to "Are they hiding under tge rug, I attack the rug" levels of meta.

So, at my table, a constant litany of guidance wouldn't do anyone much good and if someone asked I'd try and explain that to them

[Millface]

Don't do this. Game balance is whatever, and guidance can be applied to most checks anyway. Don't punish your players for taking a strong option.

I would never do this just because someone made good use of Guidance, or even someone who remembered to use it ad nauseum. That's just good play. I would only do this if someone was pushing an "always on" amendment to it and argued with me for too long about it to the point where it was disruptive. My table isn't like that, they state their case and accept the answer one way or the other, and if they feel really strongly about it we discuss it outside of the game.

I was only mentioning it for the cases where a player is being overly combative about it. At that point you give the baby his bottle and move on. A cantrip shouldn't cause a 30 minute argument one way or the other.

[MaxWilson]

I think there's plenty of reasonable middle ground between "I cast it 24/7 forever" and "You're never allowed to cast it" that favors the former without getting to that extreme. And I'm rather skeptical that RAI is "Guidance grants a permanent forever bonus"

Agreed. If that were RAI, Guidance would simply have Duration: concentration instead of Duration: concentration (up to 1 minute).

[Knaight]

What part of exhaustion is gained from mumbling religious mumbojumbo and flicking gangsigns?

The part where you're doing that to throw extensive magical powers around, which have a very long history of being depicted as somewhat physically draining, which fits the daily limits on higher level spells just fine. Sure, cantrips aren't limited but neither are rounds of combat, and combat is exhausting.

[Kadesh]

The part where you're doing that to throw extensive magical powers around, which have a very long history of being depicted as somewhat physically draining, which fits the daily limits on higher level spells just fine. Sure, cantrips aren't limited but neither are rounds of combat, and combat is exhausting.
There are rules for wearing armour all the time. Tell me where, outside of the dms say so, is the rule for exhaustion for casting spells?

[Millface]

The part where you're doing that to throw extensive magical powers around, which have a very long history of being depicted as somewhat physically draining, which fits the daily limits on higher level spells just fine. Sure, cantrips aren't limited but neither are rounds of combat, and combat is exhausting.

This. You don't normally have to pull from this kind of realism, and there's no concrete rules for it because it doesn't come up that often in normal play, but sometimes when players want to abuse RAW the correct response isn't to say no, but to say "yes, but...". If they're going to say "I can cast cantrips 1,000 times a day because it doesn't say I can't" I have every right to say:

"You're not really surprised that on your 30th casting you feel tired and drained, because your character is smart enough to know that going up one stair is easy, but going up a hundred stairs is not. Take a level of exhaustion."

I'm not saying that's how I'd handle it, this falls under one of the few times I'd just say "no", but it's not unfair or unrealistic for a DM to do it the way I described above.


There are rules for wearing armour all the time. Tell me where, outside of the dms say so, is the rule for exhaustion for casting spells?

There isn't one outside of DM's say so. However, DMs say so is, in fact, RAW. When your players present you with something that isn't covered but you feel should be covered, you get to make that call in the way the best aligns with your campaign and your table, and, most importantly, everyone's fun factor. Having to remember to cast this, and having to describe when and how you do it, are part of the core mechanics of the game. Trying to circumvent this turns Guidance into a flat +2.5 to ability checks. It turns a spell into a feat. Spells are not feats. If you don't want to have to say you're casting guidance every time you do it I'm sure your character probably doesn't want to cast it everytime they do anything either. If it's annoying to you, wouldn't it track that it's annoying to them, too?

[Jophiel]

There are rules for wearing armour all the time. Tell me where, outside of the dms say so, is the rule for exhaustion for casting spells?
Honestly, one of the DM's jobs is to enforce common sense in a setting where not every possible idea can be handled with RAW. There's no RAW saying you can't swing a flail as a helicopter over your head to protect you from bats for seven hours straight either but it's not a failing for the DM to impose some sort of penalty for that extended period of activity even though "swings a flail" is a perfectly allowable combat move.

"Outside of the DM's say so" isn't a bug or flaw in this case, it's just part of the job.

[Naanomi]

So... background: Hermit; my Hermit secret knowledge is how to maintain a droning chant and prayers to continually cast guidance without GM interference?

[ad_hoc]

I don't think I would say no to it, just accept it and warn the player how I would likely rule the consequences of constant spellcasting for stealthy and social situations. However, I suspect I would not want to keep playing long with a player who does not care about how the character appears in the fiction, and only want to 'win the game'...

There is a fine line in here somewhere.

Take the Resistance cantrip. Isn't it designed to be used this way?

I'm about to play a character in a new campaign with it and I imagine I will be casting it often when in high tension situations.

So not constantly, but I could see keeping it up for a 10 minute chunk where I expect something bad to happen and we're not being stealthy.

[Kadesh]

This. You don't normally have to pull from this kind of realism, and there's no concrete rules for it because it doesn't come up that often in normal play, but sometimes when players want to abuse RAW the correct response isn't to say no, but to say "yes, but...". If they're going to say "I can cast cantrips 1,000 times a day because it doesn't say I can't" I have every right to say:

"You're not really surprised that on your 30th casting you feel tired and drained, because your character is smart enough to know that going up one stair is easy, but going up a hundred stairs is not. Take a level of exhaustion."

I'm not saying that's how I'd handle it, this falls under one of the few times I'd just say "no", but it's not unfair or unrealistic for a DM to do it the way I described above.



There isn't one outside of DM's say so. However, DMs say so is, in fact, RAW. When your players present you with something that isn't covered but you feel should be covered, you get to make that call in the way the best aligns with your campaign and your table, and, most importantly, everyone's fun factor. Having to remember to cast this, and having to describe when and how you do it, are part of the core mechanics of the game. Trying to circumvent this turns Guidance into a flat +2.5 to ability checks. It turns a spell into a feat. Spells are not feats. If you don't want to have to say you're casting guidance every time you do it I'm sure your character probably doesn't want to cast it everytime they do anything either. If it's annoying to you, wouldn't it track that it's annoying to them, too?

Wearing armour all the time is something that previously fell under DM's says so, and now includes mechanical disadvantages outside of particular people looking askance at wearing full plate mail in an otherwise 'safe' city.

Guidance is a class feature; either a level dip, or a feat cost (and a feat cost that comes at the expense of the largely better Wizard MI). It doesn't give prof, it gives a random ability mod boost to self or others at the expense of concentration and making noise. One of the worst feats in the game gives full Proficiency in several skills. As soon as 5th level is reached, Prof is mostly better than Guidance.

Guidance either makes a characters skills they are wanting to be good at slightly better - while if they wanted to be flat out best with crerertain skills, picking up Expertise is often better. If someone wants both, they have invested in Wisdom and Dexterity, class levels and/or feats into becoming a skill monkey.

But no, lets give someone exhaustion for using that thing.

[Lonely Tylenol]

The next Disney Star Wars movie should feature Rey and her buddies constantly muttering to themselves, "I am one with the Force," at least four times in every scene, because that would be totally appropriate and Jedi-like.

It would make them look brain-damaged in fact.

You’re right. No Star Wars film has ever featured a character who says, “I am one with the Force, and the Force is with me,” before doing everything that would incur risk of harm to self or others. Especially not the most critically acclaim post-reboot film.


I have seen (entirely too many) threads one could couch in terms of 'let's all gripe about Players, they're always trying to get away with stuff'/'let's gripe about DMs, they're always trying to keep their players down.' This doesn't seem to be one of those. Instead, people are having a legitimate discussion about whether automating a spellcasting process is reasonable.

Were it that were actually the case! When I got here, around page 3, like half the posters were either offering ad hoc punishments to grief the player (“you suffer exhaustion/your god hates you/I give your character permanent character flaws you are now required to act out and we are allowed to make fun of you for/your voice goes out/everyone thinks you’re stupid and leaves you bloody in a ditch”), or willfully misinterpreting the rules (“so you just spend 12 seconds of every minute doing nothing but standing still and waving your arms around and shouting?”) or the intent of the question (“so, what, you cast it for twice a minute for literally every minute or every day? That’s, like, 2880 casts per day!”). Since page 3, it looks like most discussion that has followed has involved the same set of people trying to justify griefing players by either walking back or doubling down on their statements.


Basically nobody has an issue with the mechanical side of this - it's the setting verisimilitude side, completely absent from your post, which is causing the reaction. There's also nothing that can be reasonably construed as punishment. Not getting to treat spells with a 1 minute casting time as if they had a 24 hour casting time isn't a punishment.

The punishments people are offering here sure are mechanical.


The part where you're doing that to throw extensive magical powers around, which have a very long history of being depicted as somewhat physically draining, which fits the daily limits on higher level spells just fine. Sure, cantrips aren't limited but neither are rounds of combat, and combat is exhausting.

There’s an in-universe justification for why cantrips *aren’t* physically draining, and it’s in the PHB:


Cantrips
A cantrip is a spell that can be cast at will, without using a spell slot and without being prepared in advance. Repeated practice has fixed the spell in the caster’s mind and infused the caster with the magic needed to produce the effect over and over. A cantrip’s spell level is 0.

So a cantrip is like a minor exercise you’ve repeated to the point of mastery, to the point where it’s not exhausting; the magic needed to perform the spell is even ingrained into the fiber of your being. Kind of like how, oh, my untrained thumbs hurt after 30-60 minutes of playing bass, but my guitarist buddy (and I, on the piano) could just play scales for hours on our respective instruments without exhaustion. It is absolutely within the realm of verisimilitude for a character who has practiced a skill to the point of mastery and habit to routinely and habitually use their mastered skill where applicable.

[Zalabim]

There is a fine line in here somewhere.

Take the Resistance cantrip. Isn't it designed to be used this way?

I'm about to play a character in a new campaign with it and I imagine I will be casting it often when in high tension situations.

So not constantly, but I could see keeping it up for a 10 minute chunk where I expect something bad to happen and we're not being stealthy.
I think Resistance is designed to be used in the case where you know someone is going to have to make a saving throw and want to help them with it. For example, a bazillion effects that allow a save periodically, frequently each turn, to end the effect.

[Pelle]

I'm about to play a character in a new campaign with it and I imagine I will be casting it often when in high tension situations.

So not constantly, but I could see keeping it up for a 10 minute chunk where I expect something bad to happen and we're not being stealthy.

Yeah, I have no problem with it in high tension situation. It is more the 24 hrs a day during downtime, just in case something unexpected happens. It costs very little for the player to say it, but it is very bothersome for the character. There are no rules regulating this (exhaustion et al.), because common sense is assumed and more rules shouldn't be necessary.

[Chaosmancer]

So... background: Hermit; my Hermit secret knowledge is how to maintain a droning chant and prayers to continually cast guidance without GM interference?

See, this highlights something for me.

If a player asked to continual cast guidance, and I seemed on the fence about accurately praying for literal hours, and they said "Well, my cleric lived in the hills for years, spending days at a time in prayer, so he'd be used to it." I would be like "Okay, you have a point."

If a player came to me during character creation and said "I took the hermit background, and I learned the secret of casting guidance constantly" with the implied, 'so I'll always have a +1d4 to all ability checks' my reaction would be closer to "No, why are you using your background to break how the spell is meant to be cast, you could do way cooler stuff."


As someone said earlier, it is all about intent. And frankly, while I can see Shillelagh being constant cast in a dungeon or cave... I can't see it for guidance. Initiative isn't that important and the benefits to perception have to be weighed against the constant drone of casting. It just seems to be trying too hard to eke out the smallest possible advantages, and my games aren't that finely balanced.

[Knaight]

You’re right. No Star Wars film has ever featured a character who says, “I am one with the Force, and the Force is with me,” before doing everything that would incur risk of harm to self or others. Especially not the most critically acclaim post-reboot film.

Bolding mine. You'll notice that they didn't do this while just traveling, in the middle of scenes without risk, or other such things. Throwing guidance down right before you're going to need it is an entirely different thing than trying to maintain it for 16 hours a day.

[Lord Vukodlak]

a Fighter can swing a sword however many times a day he wants. There’s no limit. But would anyone say it’s unreasonable that swinging your sword every minnute for a few hours could be tiring?.

I also don’t think it’s be unreasonable for concentrating on something for a long time could also be exhausting.

Imagine if every 30 seconds or every minute of talking the player said “i cast Guidance” etc.

“We should the north road. I cast guidance. Better to go over the mountains then through the swamp.”

And because spell casting isn’t typically silent he’d be interrupting the other player.
That would get annoying very quickly

But the big question is why are you doing this. Guidance applies to ability checks not saves. How often do you get a surprise ability check. With no time to prep? And shillelagh is a bonus action to cast.
The best “punishment” would be for NPCs and other PCs to mock the character for being ridiculous. And insure he never benefits from constantly casting those spells.

[UrielAwakened]

Yes, there is. If it's retroactively cast, the DM knows it's being applied to this specific action and if the spell shouldn't apply for any reason you can say no. If you allow it to be recast and assumed always on, the player is just going to add the d4 to the roll no matter what they're doing, whether it should apply or not, and you, as the DM, have too much other stuff to focus on to catch that every time it's done.

If I absolutely had to say yes to this because a player made a big to-do about it, I'd just flat increase every DC for everything by 2 without telling you. There you go, have your thing. I'm going to keep my game balance, though.

Lol @ thinking 5e is balanced and that said balance is so delicate that guidance breaks it.

Get a grip please.

[Jophiel]

There’s an in-universe justification for why cantrips *aren’t* physically draining, and it’s in the PHB:
Cantrips
A cantrip is a spell that can be cast at will, without using a spell slot and without being prepared in advance. Repeated practice has fixed the spell in the caster’s mind and infused the caster with the magic needed to produce the effect over and over. A cantrip’s spell level is 0.
So a cantrip is like a minor exercise you’ve repeated to the point of mastery, to the point where it’s not exhausting; the magic needed to perform the spell is even ingrained into the fiber of your being. Kind of like how, oh, my untrained thumbs hurt after 30-60 minutes of playing bass, but my guitarist buddy (and I, on the piano) could just play scales for hours on our respective instruments without exhaustion. It is absolutely within the realm of verisimilitude for a character who has practiced a skill to the point of mastery and habit to routinely and habitually use their mastered skill where applicable.
I think there's a difference between being able to do something casually at-will and doing it repeatedly over and over, hour after hour without any ill effect. I can recite my multiplication tables by twelves or conjugate irregular French verbs at the drop of a hat. If I had to do so repeatedly for sixteen hours, I'd go batty and a rank of exhaustion would seem pretty reasonable from a mental standpoint. Having to constantly interrupt my thoughts and actions once a minute to do it would only make it worse.

For that matter, having to listen to someone recite them for sixteen hours sounds like the sort of thing they'd do to break suspected terrorists. Even worse, having me recite my twelves tables for a couple hours and then needing me to suddenly recite my sevens on a dime because an owlbear is charging me is probably going to lead to bad results.

[UrielAwakened]

Also DMs like you guys are why most people that optimize only focus on combat.

It has concrete rules so you have a way harder time ripping the rug out of from under someone.

You're literally arguing that just being able to have Guidance up all the time is worth caring about in a game where Eldritch Blast exists and is twice as good as all other cantrips already.

[Jophiel]

You're literally arguing that just being able to have Guidance up all the time is worth caring about in a game where Eldritch Blast exists and is twice as good as all other cantrips already.
Anyone arguing the pros and cons of it is "literally arguing" that it is "worth caring about", or else they'd shrug and drop it since it didn't matter to them.

[Knaight]

Also DMs like you guys are why most people that optimize only focus on combat.

It has concrete rules so you have a way harder time ripping the rug out of from under someone.

You're literally arguing that just being able to have Guidance up all the time is worth caring about in a game where Eldritch Blast exists and is twice as good as all other cantrips already.

Again, the mechanics aren't the point here (and Eldritch Blast is largely besides the point, being a Warlock cantrip and not a Cleric cantrip, and thus having to take a more major damaging role due to Warlocks having way fewer spells) - preserving the integrity of the fictional setting is.

I've also seen vastly fewer of these players that only focus on combat than everyone else seems to insist exist, probably because focusing on the setting fiction instead of the mechanics is a stronger method for less combat focused games (as the mechanical side is usually not particularly interesting detached from the setting).

[Millface]

Wearing armour all the time is something that previously fell under DM's says so, and now includes mechanical disadvantages outside of particular people looking askance at wearing full plate mail in an otherwise 'safe' city.

Guidance is a class feature; either a level dip, or a feat cost (and a feat cost that comes at the expense of the largely better Wizard MI). It doesn't give prof, it gives a random ability mod boost to self or others at the expense of concentration and making noise. One of the worst feats in the game gives full Proficiency in several skills. As soon as 5th level is reached, Prof is mostly better than Guidance.

Guidance either makes a characters skills they are wanting to be good at slightly better - while if they wanted to be flat out best with crerertain skills, picking up Expertise is often better. If someone wants both, they have invested in Wisdom and Dexterity, class levels and/or feats into becoming a skill monkey.

But no, lets give someone exhaustion for using that thing.

You're aware that we're talking about using that thing non-stop for every waking minute of the adventuring day, right? I'm not talking about using guidance on every check you need to make, I'm talking about casting a spell every thirty seconds for 16 waking hours. there are 960 minutes in 16 hours, which means that someone who casts guidance every thirty seconds is casting 1,920 cantrips in a day.

1,920

I'm sorry, but that's a no from me. It's ridiculous. If your table allows it that's fine, I'm not going to tell another DM how to run their game, I'm just offering my two cents like everybody else. If you're telling me you want to cast 2,000 spells per day every day I'm going to laugh in your face, cantrip or no.


Lol @ thinking 5e is balanced and that said balance is so delicate that guidance breaks it.

Get a grip please.

Never said guidance breaks game balance. In fact, in another thread, I argued that guidance is just another cantrip and not really more or less powerful than most other cantrips. I'm saying that I would say no to someone who proposed casting the spell on cooldown for the entire adventuring day, and if one of my players argued about that call further that's how I'd handle it. Your DM said it's not feasible for you to cast a cantrip 2,000 times a day, if you don't like that call and feel the need to keep wasting everyone's time, I'm going to come up with a way to shut you up without actually giving you any benefit so we can move on and play the game.

Thankfully, no one I've ever played with would actually try to argue that. They'd say "Hey, can I have this just... always on? It's kind of annoying to have to cast it 12 times a day.", I'd say "No, I need you to state it like any other ability because sometimes it might not apply when you think it does." And they'd say "ok, cool, just thought I'd ask." And we'd be done with it.

[UrielAwakened]

Again, the mechanics aren't the point here (and Eldritch Blast is largely besides the point, being a Warlock cantrip and not a Cleric cantrip, and thus having to take a more major damaging role due to Warlocks having way fewer spells) - preserving the integrity of the fictional setting is.

I've also seen vastly fewer of these players that only focus on combat than everyone else seems to insist exist, probably because focusing on the setting fiction instead of the mechanics is a stronger method for less combat focused games (as the mechanical side is usually not particularly interesting detached from the setting).

If the illusion of your fictional setting is shattered by this you built a crappy setting.

Any DM that can't handle guidance spam, regardless of why they can't handle it, should not be DMing. Period, period, period.

[Millface]

If the illusion of your fictional setting is shattered by this you built a crappy setting.

Any DM that can't handle guidance spam, regardless of why they can't handle it, should not be DMing.

Here's a guy I'd just say yes to and increase his DC for everything by 2.

If your DM makes a ruling and you can't handle it, you should not be Playing.

[UrielAwakened]

Nah DMs like this are why people stop playing dnd altogether.

Take a back seat role in campaigns if you're gonna be so inflexible and incapable of adapting to simple stuff like this. It's okay to not be qualified to DM. It's not for everyone.

[Jophiel]

Nah DMs like this are why people stop playing dnd altogether.
They quit because they're mad when they can't exploit nonsense loopholes or subvert intent? I'm... okay with that?

[MoiMagnus]

Would you allow a player to cast buffing cantrips (Shillelagh, Guidance, Resistance, etc) every 30 seconds while adventuring?

Entering every combat pre-buffed with cantrips would be greatly advantageous. Knowing Guidance means you'll always have a 1d4 bonus to initiative. And having Shillelagh pre-casted means you save a bonus action.

Guidance can also help with ability checks such as Perception, while Resistance can be helpful if traps are expected.

Obviously, it shouldn't be possible to continuously cast these cantrips while trying to be stealthy or while talking to NPCs. But other than that, I can't see why a DM would forbid it.

"Every 30s, I cast Guidance"
"Every 30s, I strike with my sword in the air behind me to check for ghosts"
"Every 30s, I touch the ground to search for traps"
"Every 30s, I actively search for threat around me to never be taken by surprise"
"I always run and never walk"

No you can't, that's tiring. Fully OK for very short periods. I would ask for an Endurance roll for reasonably short periods. Failure is either an exhaustion level, either forgetting it at the critical moment. For longer periods, that would be automatically some exhaustion levels (so basically you end up with a disadvantage to everything) and on top of that some chance to forget it at the critical moment (Sag based roll for that).

If your setup is very high fantasy (or high level character that have some adequate RP), you can consider the spell-caster have been specifically trained to be able to do so for long period of time, or has a kind of "magical software" that cast the spell automatically. But not in standard D&D.

[Naanomi]

I'm sorry, but that's a no from me. It's ridiculous. If your table allows it that's fine, I'm not going to tell another DM how to run their game, I'm just offering my two cents like everybody else. If you're telling me you want to cast 2,000 spells per day every day I'm going to laugh in your face, cantrip or no.
So what is the limit?

“The party is trapped in the keep, surrounded by thousands... maybe millions... of skeletons. More arrive every day. They cannot breach the walls, but food supplies are stretched and moral is low. The party convenes with the Lord of the Keep to devise strategies.”

“My Warlock is not the ‘plan and prepare’ type; I go to the top of the gate and snipe skeletons all day.”

“After 100 Eldritch blasts you are too tired to continue”

“...”

[Millface]

Nah DMs like this are why people stop playing dnd altogether.

Take a back seat role in campaigns if you're gonna be so inflexible and incapable of adapting to simple stuff like this. It's okay to not be qualified to DM. It's not for everyone.

My players have tons of fun at my table. We'll just say that I'm hella glad you're not one of them, and I understand that you're glad I'm not your DM and call it good. You'd quit my table, which would be well and good because I'd probably end up kicking you off of it anyway, and the rest of us would continue to have fun.


They quit because they're mad when they can't exploit nonsense loopholes or subvert intent? I'm... okay with that?

Yup. No shortage of players here. I've got a handful of people who want to join that I just don't have room for. Apparently people really like playing with unqualified, bad DMs around here. Lucky me.


So what is the limit?

“The party is trapped in the keep, surrounded by thousands... maybe millions... of skeletons. They cannot breach the walls, but food supplies are stretched and moral is low. The party convenes with the Lord of the Keep to devise strategies.”

“My Warlock is not the ‘plan and prepare’ type; I go to the top of the gate and snipe skeletons all day.”

“After 100 Eldritch blasts you are too tired to continue”

“...”

This is where 5e shines, IMO, because DMs can handle this in a myriad of different ways. Fighting a siege that could last for days is not something that's explicitly covered in RAW, but exhaustion is ruled as...

"Some Special Abilities and environmental hazards, such as starvation and the long-*term effects of freezing or scorching temperatures, can lead to a Special condition called exhaustion. Exhaustion is measured in six levels. An effect can give a creature one or more levels of exhaustion, as specified in the effect’s description."

I would categorize siege fighting somewhere in the long-term effects of a harsh environment. 10 minutes of straight combat would be absurdly hard on a person, an entire day is something an olympian can't even do without breaks. I would say that for every hour of fighting that you do, regardless of what you use to do it, you would take a level of exhaustion unless you took a short rest break. If you stay up through the night you get exhaustion as normal. There's no hard number limit but you also aren't a neverending bastion of endurance just because something isn't explicitly covered in the books.

Other DMs might let you cast EB 2,000 times. If you're all having fun at your table IDGAF what you do, but that's not how I'd do it and I've yet to have someone at my table think that I'm ruining the game for them by trying to be at least a tiny bit realistic. I'm not going full on Dark Souls here. 8 hours of fighting in a 16 hour day would nearly kill a person, and I'm allowing that with no drawback provided you take breaks between the fighting. I'm just making a ruling that I think makes sense, you know... like a DM is supposed to do.

[dmteeter]

So what is the limit?

“The party is trapped in the keep, surrounded by thousands... maybe millions... of skeletons. They cannot breach the walls, but food supplies are stretched and moral is low. The party convenes with the Lord of the Keep to devise strategies.”

“My Warlock is not the ‘plan and prepare’ type; I go to the top of the gate and snipe skeletons all day.”

“After 100 Eldritch blasts you are too tired to continue”

“...”

after a hundred probably not however after 10,800 times i'd say yes it probably would be very exhausting.

[Jophiel]

“My Warlock is not the ‘plan and prepare’ type; I go to the top of the gate and snipe skeletons all day.”

“After 100 Eldritch blasts you are too tired to continue”

“...”
"You go and snipe skeletons all day, making no appreciable impact on their numbers" then I move on because whether you snipe one a round for a hundred rounds or take a breather in between isn't relevant and not worth debating.

A lot of DMing is a case by case basis.

[dmteeter]

Most of us in the no category don't care at all about the small boon you get from guidance/shillelagh. I personally think it's not worth it.

I wouldn't even have a problem with a player casting it say every we enter a cave, room, etc.

And in the event of the siege scenario it would make sense to cast guidance as often as you can that and i have no problem with it.

My problem is the player saying "every 30 seconds" that's pointless and doesn't make sense so it's a no from me.

[Naanomi]

I would suggest that sniping skeletons isn’t exactly ‘combat’ In terms of fatigue... I don’t need to dodge, or move, nor worry about danger... just leisurely stroll and shoot whatever I want to.

But ok, one hour on one hour off for short rests... I shoot 600 an hour for 10 hours a day (I’m an elf, trance not sleep gives me a few more hours)... so the limit about is 6,000 Eldritch Blasts without penalties. Good to know


"You go and snipe skeletons all day, making no appreciable impact on their numbers" then I move on because whether you snipe one a round for a hundred rounds or take a breather in between isn't relevant and not worth debating.

A lot of DMing is a case by case basis.
Which is how I’d handle it as well, but as soon as I start making rulings I also want to be aware of what the results are and if I’m comfortable with the implications. Saying cantrips are too tiring to repeatedly cast would put barriers in place to this sort of thing

[Cybren]

I would suggest that sniping skeletons isn’t exactly ‘combat’ In terms of fatigue... I don’t need to dodge, or move, nor worry about danger... just leisurely stroll and shoot whatever I want to.

But ok, one hour on one hour off for short rests... I shoot 600 an hour for 10 hours a day (I’m an elf, trance not sleep gives me a few more hours)... so the limit about is 6,000 Eldritch Blasts without penalties. Good to know

isn't the actual limit the number before you would die of exhaustion?

[Naanomi]

isn't the actual limit the number before you would die of exhaustion?
I said ‘without penalties’; but yes I could probably squeeze out a few more. A Celestial Warlock could even use Greater Restoration to keep themselves going longer if they needed to (probably not the most effective use of their spell slots though)

[Millface]

"You go and snipe skeletons all day, making no appreciable impact on their numbers" then I move on because whether you snipe one a round for a hundred rounds or take a breather in between isn't relevant and not worth debating.

A lot of DMing is a case by case basis.

That's one way to do it, certainly. Although, one EB cast per round is 10/minute, and if you kill a skeleton every two casts, you can knock out 5 per minute. 300/hour. 4,800 in an adventuring day.

I mean, at that point I suppose there's no point in armies anymore, right?

If someone is killing 300 of your soldiers/hour the more likely scenario is that after the first hour enemy casters are going to swarm you, they're going to try a different tactic. It's not black and white, certainly. The real answer is that I wouldn't need a ruling for the limit of EBs you can cast in a 16 hour day because no evil overlord in their right mind is going to just let you stand on the wall and decimate his entire army. The scenario in question just wouldn't happen.

Often times the answer to weird rules questions like that is something as simple as "it shouldn't get to that point to begin with".

[Naanomi]

That's one way to do it, certainly. Although, one EB cast per round is 10/minute, and if you kill a skeleton every two casts, you can knock out 5 per minute. 300/hour. 4,800 in an adventuring day.

I mean, at that point I suppose there's no point in armies anymore, right?

If someone is killing 300 of your soldiers/hour the more likely scenario is that after the first hour enemy casters are going to swarm you, they're going to try a different tactic. It's not black and white, certainly. The real answer is that I wouldn't need a ruling for the limit of EBs you can cast in a 16 hour day because no evil overlord in their right mind is going to just let you stand on the wall and decimate his entire army. The scenario in question just wouldn't happen.

Often times the answer to weird rules questions like that is something as simple as "it shouldn't get to that point to begin with".
In all fairness, the real scenario above wasn’t an army, it was that the Lord of the Keep stole a cursed item from a tomb; the skeletons had no leader, they would never stop coming, and the adventurers eventually had to sneak out through an underground tunnel/dungeon to return the cursed item and stop the siege

[KorvinStarmast]

So... background: Hermit; my Hermit secret knowledge is how to maintain a droning chant and prayers to continually cast guidance without GM interference? I think that you got the last part of that sentence wrong. (Although I love the idea!) That "secret knowledge" is something you and the DM work out in a collaborative fashion to fit the campaign/game world. If the GM/DM is good with this as the secret, great! (Though as noted above, it is equivalent to a feat ... no worries). If not, then get another cool secret.
The words in the PHB are his:

Work with your DM to determine the details of your discovery and its impact on the campaign Uriel and Kadesh are (or at least seem to be) advocating for a Player vs DM table dynamic. That's toxic.
Also, as Max pointed out.

If that were RAI, Guidance would simply have Duration: concentration instead of Duration: concentration (up to 1 minute).

Guidance is a class feature; No, it is a level 0 spell; a cantrip.

Bolding mine. You'll notice that they didn't do this while just traveling, in the middle of scenes without risk, or other such things. Throwing guidance down right before you're going to need it is an entirely different thing than trying to maintain it for 16 hours a day. Yes, but you are not having an argument with rational people here.

Nah DMs like this are why people stop playing dnd altogether. Nope. It's players like that who drive normal people away from D&D. Inane rules arguments founded in a reductio absurdum, like this case, is the kind of crap that drove my son away from D&D when he was in college. He got tired of that form of asshattery and found other things to do with his free time. (3.5e era; he's played a little with us in 5e but finds the virtual table top not as much fun as in person).

They quit because they're mad when they can't exploit nonsense loopholes or subvert intent? I'm... okay with that? yeah, and the table is better off without them.

[Millface]

In all fairness, the real scenario above wasn’t an army, it was that the Lord of the Keep stole a cursed item from a tomb; the skeletons had no leader, they would never stop coming, and the adventurers eventually had to sneak out through an underground tunnel/dungeon to return the cursed item and stop the siege

Fair enough. If all of this started with a ruling that you could fire EBs all day if you split your time evenly between fighting and resting, and a player took that, did the math, and said "huh, that's 6,000 cantrips in a day, I'm going to use that ruling that was created for this weird situation to argue that I should be able to cast guidance every thirty seconds." I wouldn't say yes to it just because a previous ruling allowed something like that for one day in one situation.

I'm not a walking game designer, some of my rulings will work in one place and seem to make sense, but they wouldn't in a different scenario, because no DM is going to sit there and think of every possible way a ruling, if taken as New RAW at your table, could break the game in half. DM rulings have to be taken case by case and shouldn't be used to argue against different rulings down the road unless your DM is just... maddeningly inconsistent and it's honestly breaking your immersion in the game.

In this case, to say that you can EB every other hour for 16 hours but you can't cast guidance every thirty seconds shouldn't be an issue for a player, and I don't know a player personally that would take issue with that. All I would have to say is that "I'd prefer to know when you're casting it specifically, because it won't always work when or how you think it should in oddball situations and I need to be able to deal with that."

[MoiMagnus]

So what is the limit?

“The party is trapped in the keep, surrounded by thousands... maybe millions... of skeletons. More arrive every day. They cannot breach the walls, but food supplies are stretched and moral is low. The party convenes with the Lord of the Keep to devise strategies.”

“My Warlock is not the ‘plan and prepare’ type; I go to the top of the gate and snipe skeletons all day.”

“After 100 Eldritch blasts you are too tired to continue”

“...”

Approximately the same as for swinging your sword (maybe more tiring than that, like 10 times, but not more). You can't kill a million of skeleton with a sword or an Eldritch blasts without dying from exhaustion in the process.

If that's not something that is relevant to the plot, the DM should just improvise on-the-fly the number of sword strike / Eldritch blast that the player can do.

If that's something important, the DM should ask a skill test (probably Endurance) or a save roll (probably Con).

[UrielAwakened]

They quit because they're mad when they can't exploit nonsense loopholes or subvert intent? I'm... okay with that?

It's not an exploit it's a reasonable use of a spell.

And intent is bull****. The designers don't get to decide best execution.


Uriel and Kadesh are (or at least seem to be) advocating for a Player vs DM table dynamic. That's toxic.

I'm not advocating player vs. DM, I'm advocating some people not be DMs at all because they're not the right type of person to do it effectively. Again, if you cannot handle guidance being up all the time because a player wants it, then what can you handle? What level of creativity or innovative thinking isn't too much for your fragile ego to not have thought of ahead of time? How rigid and unflexible is your world that it doesn't make sense that people going into dangerous situations would take all preparations they are capable of within the confines of the game world?

By the rules not a thing stops this. Not a damn thing.

[Jophiel]

That's one way to do it, certainly. Although, one EB cast per round is 10/minute, and if you kill a skeleton every two casts, you can knock out 5 per minute. 300/hour. 4,800 in an adventuring day.
[...]
Often times the answer to weird rules questions like that is something as simple as "it shouldn't get to that point to begin with".
Fair enough; I was taking the situation as presented without trying to fight the hypothetical. Since it sounded as though there was a practically infinite number of skeletons (thousands to millions with more arriving constantly) there wouldn't be much reason to comment on the warlock's plan beyond "You go do that. Moving on..."

In a more constrained situation, I wouldn't allow three or four warlocks to decimate an army by leaning against a high wall and sipping coffee as they zap five thousand skeletons a day a piece but I'd be more likely to respond with skeletal archers or other ranged responses before worrying about how many cantrips they can reasonably cast per day.

It's not an exploit it's a reasonable use of a spell.
Nah, casting it repeatedly hundreds of times a day is not "reasonable"

And intent is bull****. The designers don't get to decide best execution.
True. That's the DM's job.

It's kind of funny that you equate "I cast this spell over and over FOREVER!!!!" with "creative thinking". It's about as lazy as you can get for exploiting the system. You're not even combining mechanics to come up with something remotely clever, you're just saying "Hey, casting this once is good so casting it a million times must be awesome"

[Naanomi]

If that's something important, the DM should ask a skill test (probably Endurance) or a save roll (probably Con).
What is the Endurance skill?

[Millface]

I'm not advocating player vs. DM, I'm advocating some people not be DMs at all because they're not the right type of person to do it effectively. Again, if you cannot handle guidance being up all the time because a player wants it, then what can you handle? What level of creativity or innovative thinking isn't too much for your fragile ego to not have thought of ahead of time? How rigid and unflexible is your world that it doesn't make sense that people going into dangerous situations would take all preparations they are capable of within the confines of the game world?

By the rules not a thing stops this. Not a damn thing.

If you can't handle stating when you're using guidance before you use it, what can you handle? What level of basic communication with your DM isn't too much for your fragile ego to adhere to? How rigid and inflexible is your mindset that it doesn't make sense for a DM to ask you to take 2 seconds to state that you're using an ability when it's relevant instead of arguing tooth and nail to be able to have it up 100% of the time? What kind of person thinks that casting a cantrip non-stop is innovative preparedness when going into a dangerous situation, when realistically you'd be better off actually paying attention to the world around you so that you don't get ambushed, fall into a trap, or miss something that could have been important?

By the rules, a DM can tweak anything they feel necessary in their game. Any damn thing.

See what I did there?

[langal]

So if you don't allow Shillilagh and Guidance to become permanent, static bonuses - you shouldn't be a DM?

[Millface]

So if you don't allow Shillilagh and Guidance to become permanent, static bonuses - you shouldn't be a DM?

Everything he's said so far has basically translated to "Give me what I want or you're bad"

So I'm sure it doesn't end at limitless Guidance, there are probably many, many things that disqualify DMs for him. Namely, disagreeing on anything at all, ever.

I wouldn't take it too personally, given that he's objectively wrong and all that. If your table is having fun, you're a good DM, that's all there is to it.

[Jophiel]

Yeah, I'm not sure if "I'll shame them into agreeing with me by repeating over and over that they suck unless they agree with my demands" is a winning tactic.

On the scale of innovation, casting Guidance over and over ranks just below "I hold a sword in each hand and spin in circles as I go down the hallway for the entire dungeon so anything surprising us gets hit by my swords; there's no rules about dizziness or how many attacks you can make in a row so if you stop me you're a terrible DM who can't handle the game". I wouldn't begrudge anyone for asking the question but I'd hate to think that they consider it clever.

[Segev]

It sounds like the majority of the "no" answers are based on thinking it sounds stupid, not based on balance concerns. (The guy saying he'd raise DCs by 2 for all rolls is obviously one of the balance-concerned ones.) Is this...mostly right?

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not advocating player vs. DM, I'm advocating some people not be DMs at all I'd suggest you look in the mirror when you say that.
If you feel that this would not break anything, then at your table, it works that way.
If you go back to the first few pages of this thread, there were about four different takes on this attempt at an exploit from "no to sort of to with this mod to why not?" These views were proffered by various people who look at this through the eyes of a DM.
All four of them were right.
That is what you don't seem to get about D&D 5e. I suggest that you head to the 5e philosophy thread, and maybe pay attention to what Mearls has to say about this particular edition of the game.

[UrielAwakened]

Seeing as how i'm the DM, and I know the DM's job is just basically say yes to everything unless it would encroach on another player's fun, yeah. It's not player vs. DM. It's good gameplay vs. unnecessarily limiting gameplay.

Power-tripping DMs in this topic finna justify their sad grips on their tables smh. If someone wants to be an ultra-prepared, ultra-devout Cleric who casts guidance all the time then let them. Who hurt you.


I wouldn't take it too personally, given that he's objectively wrong and all that. If your table is having fun, you're a good DM, that's all there is to it.


Lot's of DMs rely on that fact that there's a DM shortage to keeping their tables going. People would often rather play a mediocre game than not play at all.

I wouldn't set the bar so low for "good DM."

[KorvinStarmast]

It sounds like the majority of the "no" answers are based on thinking it sounds stupid, not based on balance concerns. My response was slightly informed by real life, and a bit more by concerns for verisimilitude regarding this attempted cheese/.

===========

About being distracted when you say the same prayer over and over: our chapter of the Knights of Columbus always encourages men to say the Rosary daily; quite a few of my brother Knights advocate "saying the rosary while you are driving to work. It's better for your peace of mind than listening to the news, etc." And some of them do, and we sometimes (when heading to an event) do one together in a car full of guys. Long story short: I nearly got into two car wrecks while doing that on the drive to work about 6 years ago. So I stopped doing it. (I'll usually say a decade as I leave the house and head toward work, but that's it). I found that getting into a prayerful state was detrimental to paying attention to the world around me.

The disadvantage on perception and initiative, in my take, was somewhat informed by RL, but it was more informed by the other points regarding concentration, and the verbal and somatic components involved in casting guidance, and a part of people doing something together.

As for shillelagh: it is a bonus action with V&S components. Beyond some of the discussions of "do bonus actions exist outside of combat?" (Separate topic to this thread) I've never found it a problem to, on round 1, cast shillelagh with bonus action and there I am with a magical weapon for something that might need to be whacked. (Alternatively, one could cast bless and a then use a bonus action cantrip to cast shillelagh, if you have the cantrip from a feat as my life cleric does, and Bob's your uncle again).

[Knaight]

Seeing as how i'm the DM, and I know the DM's job is just basically say yes to everything unless it would encroach on another player's fun, yeah. It's not player vs. DM. It's good gameplay vs. unnecessarily limiting gameplay.

As a player I'd hate your game - so it's hardly surprising that as a GM I don't use your style.

[KorvinStarmast]

I know the DM's job is just basically say yes to everything unless it would encroach on another player's fun, I've seen D&D games like that before: they don't last because (in part) the DM vacates his role.
In some different game systems, that might work pretty well.

[Jophiel]

Seeing as how i'm the DM, and I know the DM's job is just basically say yes to everything unless it would encroach on another player's fun, yeah.
"I'm a half-vampire, half-dragon, half-demigod, half-werewolf, half-demon lord with three vorpal swords that eat your soul and give me all your powers and my armor is made out of pure oblivion and no weapons can penetrate it..."

Sure, I've played those games. When I was in sixth grade. If that's how you want to run your table, go for it but you shouldn't assume that everyone else is doing it "wrong".

[Willie the Duck]

"I'm a half-vampire, half-dragon, half-demigod, half-werewolf, half-demon lord with three vorpal swords that eat your soul and give me all your powers and my armor is made out of pure oblivion and no weapons can penetrate it..."

You don't even have to be that over the top. "I shoot the goblin." "You can't." "Why not?" "Because you are on the wrong side of the building."

[dmteeter]

It sounds like the majority of the "no" answers are based on thinking it sounds stupid, not based on balance concerns. (The guy saying he'd raise DCs by 2 for all rolls is obviously one of the balance-concerned ones.) Is this...mostly right?

Pretty much my exact reasoning.

[Kadesh]

You're aware that we're talking about using that thing non-stop for every waking minute of the adventuring day, right? I'm not talking about using guidance on every check you need to make, I'm talking about casting a spell every thirty seconds for 16 waking hours. there are 960 minutes in 16 hours, which means that someone who casts guidance every thirty seconds is casting 1,920 cantrips in a day.

1,920

I'm sorry, but that's a no from me. It's ridiculous. If your table allows it that's fine, I'm not going to tell another DM how to run their game, I'm just offering my two cents like everybody else. If you're telling me you want to cast 2,000 spells per day every day I'm going to laugh in your face, cantrip or no.

Okay, so if it was Concentration 1 hour, would that be more or less exhausting? And why is it that Casting a spell is more mentally exhausting than physically concentrating.

Go do a push up, full RoM.
Now, do a Push up, and hold the down position for as long as you can - what is more exhausting?
During recruit training I was doing somewhere in the region of 3-4000 push ups a day as we progressed. Still would struggle to hold a plank for more than 6 minutes, despite spending hours in the position.

Go run a marathon. And go and make a sprint start. Which one is more difficult to do. Steady pace for miles, or a single explosive use of energy.

If you are okay with a spellcaster casting Extended Dominate Person 8 times a day, why is a cantrip, with cantrip requirements (something any reasonably wise human can achieve with some formal training, similar to how the Royal Marines allows reasonably fit people under training to become atheletes).

During the week 30, you damn right I prayed to jesus, and all else that is holy to make it stop. If I had the ability to flick 'West Side' up ali-g style, and I'd be getting the effect of potentially my ability to bang out push ups, give lectures, battle plans, leadership or anything else being a whole 12.5% better on average, you're damn right I'd have been doing it.

[dmteeter]

Okay, so if it was Concentration 1 hour, would that be more or less exhausting? And why is it that Casting a spell is more mentally exhausting than physically concentrating.

Go do a push up, full RoM.
Now, do a Push up, and hold the down position for as long as you can - what is more exhausting?
During recruit training I was doing somewhere in the region of 3-4000 push ups a day as we progressed. Still would struggle to hold a plank for more than 6 minutes, despite spending hours in the position.

Go run a marathon. And go and make a sprint start. Which one is more difficult to do. Steady pace for miles, or a single explosive use of energy.

If you are okay with a spellcaster casting Extended Dominate Person 8 times a day, why is a cantrip, with cantrip requirements (something any reasonably wise human can achieve with some formal training, similar to how the Royal Marines allows reasonably fit people under training to become atheletes).

During the week 30, you damn right I prayed to jesus, and all else that is holy to make it stop. If I had the ability to flick 'West Side' up ali-g style, and I'd be getting the effect of potentially my ability to bang out push ups, give lectures, battle plans, leadership or anything else being a whole 12.5% better on average, you're damn right I'd have been doing it.

I wouldn't let my player do push ups for 16 straight hours without penalty either you're whole arguement is silly.

[Jophiel]

It sounds like the majority of the "no" answers are based on thinking it sounds stupid, not based on balance concerns. (The guy saying he'd raise DCs by 2 for all rolls is obviously one of the balance-concerned ones.) Is this...mostly right?
If it was just balance, the DM could tweak DCs as he felt appropriate. It's not even just "That's dumb", either -- although that's part of it. It sets up a precedent of unintended "always on" abilities that toss realism, even fantasy gaming "realism", out the window. What is the practical difference between Always On Guidance and constantly spinning in circles with your axe for ten hours a day? Or "I only travel in four foot hops so I don't step on any tripwires and even if I'd land on one it should only be a 25% chance"? There's no rules handling it aside from common sense. This isn't Air Bud and "Welp, it doesn't say you can't" isn't a good enough reason for me to allow something utterly impractical without any side effects.

I don't really want to open the door to that nonsense. Fortunately, in the games I'm in, people don't ask to do this stuff and we all share largely the same milieu philosophy about how our fantasy world should operate.

[MaxWilson]

It sounds like the majority of the "no" answers are based on thinking it sounds stupid, not based on balance concerns. (The guy saying he'd raise DCs by 2 for all rolls is obviously one of the balance-concerned ones.) Is this...mostly right?

Yep.

As I said earlier, I haven't even found it necessary to tell players "no" on these kinds of issues. Just ask, "Are you REALLY casting that spell 1440 times every day, once every sixty seconds?" Once players think about things in character, they naturally drop the subject--and it doesn't hurt them mechanically either because honestly the tactic isn't even very powerful, compared to just casting Guidance when you know you're about to need it.

So yeah, it's not a "game balance" concern.

[UrielAwakened]

As a player I'd hate your game - so it's hardly surprising that as a GM I don't use your style.

Yeah, no you wouldn't. Getting told "yes" is awesome.

[UrielAwakened]

As a player I'd hate your game - so it's hardly surprising that as a GM I don't use your style.

Yeah, no you wouldn't. Getting told "yes" is awesome.


"I'm a half-vampire, half-dragon, half-demigod, half-werewolf, half-demon lord with three vorpal swords that eat your soul and give me all your powers and my armor is made out of pure oblivion and no weapons can penetrate it..."

Sure, I've played those games. When I was in sixth grade. If that's how you want to run your table, go for it but you shouldn't assume that everyone else is doing it "wrong".

You lack imagination if you really think "saying yes" in a game that is essentially improv is such a strange departure from best practices.


You don't even have to be that over the top. "I shoot the goblin." "You can't." "Why not?" "Because you are on the wrong side of the building."

Which is what a not-great DM would say. We usually play with a grid so if you can see something, you can generally shoot it. I don't know why I would be in a situation where a player knows a goblin is there and can't shoot it but if I had to address this I would just say, "Okay, you move briskly around the corner of the wall and shoot the goblin, however, doing so has left you in a less-advantageous position tactically, isolating you from your allies."

Again, saying yes? Not groundbreaking anywhere except at the tables of really old fashioned DMs.


I've seen D&D games like that before: they don't last because (in part) the DM vacates his role.
In some different game systems, that might work pretty well.

Weird how I've had one campaign go from 1-30, and my current from 1-10 (formerly a 4e campaign that was at 15th level) with no problems.

I've actually never understood why people say D&D games don't last long enough to get to max levels. All of mine do. Maybe I'm doing something right that you guys aren't doing. Maybe my radical departure from treating a game like a holy set of rules and self-fulfilling interactions and more like an environment where my players are free to have fun works. :smallwink:

[Jophiel]

Again, hey, if that's how you want to run your table then more power to ya and to your players if that's what they want. I don't want it, the people I play with don't want it, and if that threatens you so much that you need to keep chanting "You're all bad at D&D" over and over like a guy abusing Guidance then I suppose that's more on you. :smallbiggrin:

[UrielAwakened]

Again, hey, if that's how you want to run your table then more power to ya and to your players if that's what they want. I don't want it, the people I play with don't want it, and if that threatens you so much that you need to keep chanting "You're all bad at D&D" over and over like a guy abusing Guidance then I suppose that's more on you. :smallbiggrin:

Gimme five sessions with your players and they'll probably start wanting it though.

Like you didn't even ask them. You just assume you know what kind of playstyle they like because you assume your way is best.

Also your example is just dumb. That's not saying yes in improv. Saying yes is letting an environmental feature a player wants to use manifest. Or allowing a neat trick to work because it's fun. Or rewarding a clever use of a spell that's way outside of textbook intentions. Or inventing a tunnel beneath the castle because a player asks if there might be one they can use to escape. It's just thinking on your feet and going with whatever happens because that's essentially all improv is: Building on whatever the last person said or did.

Or in this case allowing a character to be devout and paranoid so they use Guidance all the time.

You know, stuff players like. Cause it's a game. Which is meant to be fun.

[Jophiel]

Gimme five sessions with your players and they'll probably start wanting it though.
Actually, we grew out of it. But I'll let that be the last of this weird back and forth since it's not really adding anything to the topic at hand.

[UrielAwakened]

Actually, we grew out of it. But I'll let that be the last of this weird back and forth since it's not really adding anything to the topic at hand.

Yeah you really just don't get it.

[Willie the Duck]

"You don't even have to be that over the top. "I shoot the goblin." "You can't." "Why not?" "Because you are on the wrong side of the building.""

Which is what a not-great DM would say. We usually play with a grid so if you can see something, you can generally shoot it. I don't know why I would be in a situation where a player knows a goblin is there and can't shoot it but if I had to address this I would just say, "Okay, you move briskly around the corner of the wall and shoot the goblin, however, doing so has left you in a less-advantageous position tactically, isolating you from your allies."

If you are playing with a grid, then the specific situation becomes irrelevant, but the general principle still exists. The DM still has to say no because they are defining the confines of the world in which the characters are existing in. There are things that the characters can't do but might attempt simply because they don't have a full picture of everything that exists, while the DM does. I'm not talking about the DM changing the situation to screw over the player, I am talking about the DM simply knowing more about what is going on then the totality of what they've successfully communicated to the players. Let's go with this scenario instead (since you might play combats with a battle mat, but you probably don't paint a watercolor picture of every locale the party visits).
<scene: the players arrive at a castle>
DM: "Okay, you come over the ridge and into view of Castle X."
Player 1: "Okay. I climb the castle wall."
DM: "Well, the drawbridge is down, you could just rid in. And there is someone on horseback riding towards you that you might want to investigate. Do you still want to climb the castle wall?"

Was the DM wrong for not saying yes?

[UrielAwakened]

If you are playing with a grid, then the specific situation becomes irrelevant, but the general principle still exists. The DM still has to say no because they are defining the confines of the world in which the characters are existing in. There are things that the characters can't do but might attempt simply because they don't have a full picture of everything that exists, while the DM does. I'm not talking about the DM changing the situation to screw over the player, I am talking about the DM simply knowing more about what is going on then the totality of what they've successfully communicated to the players. Let's go with this scenario instead (since you might play combats with a battle mat, but you probably don't paint a watercolor picture of every locale the party visits).
<scene: the players arrive at a castle>
DM: "Okay, you come over the ridge and into view of Castle X."
Player 1: "Okay. I climb the castle wall."
DM: "Well, the drawbridge is down, you could just rid in. And there is someone on horseback riding towards you that you might want to investigate. Do you still want to climb the castle wall?"

Was the DM wrong for not saying yes?

No but the way I would probably word it is more like, "You cross the heavy drawbridge that leads to the castle entrance and begin to attempt to climb the wall. However, as you do so, you notice a figure on horseback riding toward you."

Then let them decide how to handle it. Do they want to stop climbing? Try to hide? Play it up for comedy? All sorts of options for how it goes that's less directed.

[Kadesh]

What part of 'DM handing out arbitrary Exhaustion not supported by the rules, is a Player va DM Dynamic?

Starmast, you make me scratch my head son, you really do.

[Millface]

Gimme five sessions with your players and they'll probably start wanting it though.

Like you didn't even ask them. You just assume you know what kind of playstyle they like because you assume your way is best.

Also your example is just dumb. That's not saying yes in improv. Saying yes is letting an environmental feature a player wants to use manifest. Or allowing a neat trick to work because it's fun. Or rewarding a clever use of a spell that's way outside of textbook intentions. Or inventing a tunnel beneath the castle because a player asks if there might be one they can use to escape. It's just thinking on your feet and going with whatever happens because that's essentially all improv is: Building on whatever the last person said or did.

Or in this case allowing a character to be devout and paranoid so they use Guidance all the time.

You know, stuff players like. Cause it's a game. Which is meant to be fun.

I could be wrong, but your black and white assertions, your "I'm absolutely right, the rightest, the most rightest of everyone" attitude, and the fact that you clearly think you're the hottest **** since sliced bread has me thinking that my players wouldn't want to be in the same room with you for five minutes, let alone 5 sessions.

But to make things clear...

1. My sessions always go 1-20, they have for 6 years with this group.
2. At the half way point of every campaign we sit down and they talk to me about what they have and haven't liked, if anything needs changed, we have an open forum for improvement on all ends. I listen to my players, and they listen to me. If they didn't like the way I was running the table, they'd tell me. Two of my players have DM experience and enjoy it, and another would be good at it as far as I can tell. If they didn't want me to run the game they wouldn't have me run the game.

Your assumption that because it's not your table no one else can possibly be having fun is weird and pointless. You're wrong.

Of course people like to be told yes, but my players don't ask for stupid crap like this because they're too lazy to say "I cast guidance" before they try to pick a lock. My players being mature does not prove some twisted point for you.

Lastly, with everyone saying that if that's how your table has fun we're with you, no matter how you use guidance, and you firing back "Yes, I do run my table perfectly. I don't care if you're having fun, it's not as fun as mine, mines the funnest, because I'm the best. You have to do it like me or you suck." Just speaks volumes about the kind of person you must be. You think you've bottled "fun" and you have the only recipe for it, and refuse to believe that anyone else could possibly find different things to fit that definition than you do.


It sounds like the majority of the "no" answers are based on thinking it sounds stupid, not based on balance concerns. (The guy saying he'd raise DCs by 2 for all rolls is obviously one of the balance-concerned ones.) Is this...mostly right?

It's both, really, but even for me it's less about balance and more something I would handwave as a no because it sounds stupid and if someone argued it further or was disruptive I'd be absolutely flabbergasted by that behavior. DMs shouldn't power trip, it's one of the more disgusting things that we sometimes see with table top RPGs, but at the same time, they have to make snap judgments if you trust your DM, you don't argue over tiny rulings because you don't get exactly what you wanted.

If it was a bigger ask, like to be able to multiclass, maybe, even if a stat is too low to qualify them, but they wanted to do it because they had this idea for character development that made sense and would be cool and fun for them, that I'd think about. That I'd understand being argued with about, because it matters. But, like anything my players disagree with, and there's not much over 6 years, it's discussed outside of the game, not during it.

So, I wouldn't raise the DC by 2 for someone who cast guidance every time they made an ability check. I don't care about that, that's fine, smart even. I'd raise the DC by 2 for someone like Uriel who's going to throw a fit if baby doesn't get his bottle so he'd think he was told yes and would just STFU and let us play the game.

[Willie the Duck]

No but the way I would probably word it is more like, "You cross the heavy drawbridge that leads to the castle entrance and begin to attempt to climb the wall. However, as you do so, you notice a figure on horseback riding toward you."

Then let them decide how to handle it. Do they want to stop climbing? Try to hide? Play it up for comedy? All sorts of options for how it goes that's less directed.

Right, but my point is that you, as the DM, are always going to have more information about the game world then the players have, strictly from the fact that you have to distribute that information. At some point in this process, you are going to have to say no, not because you are being a hardass, jerk, or bad DM, but because you know that under the existing circumstances they literally can't (or I guess in my example might not want to) do something.