Anybody else nervous that they aren't showing us updated spells for D&D1?

[Damon_Tor]

So everyone is talking about the ranger and how much damage they can do now because the new Hunters Mark is good and the new TWF works well with it. Swift Quiver is also a part of the discussion to a lesser degree.

Yeah, okay, but am I the only one who thinks it's blindingly obvious that Hunter's Mark will deal it's extra damage just 1 per turn by the time we get to publication?

Am I crazy?

[MrStabby]

It may do... but its also hard to see these things in isolation.

Let's say the ranger as presented was it's final form. Let's say that the spells might change and that hunters mark might be less good...

We still don't know what the average damage level per round in the game will look like. We still don't know what weapons might be available (like are longbow going to be d8 damage and a range of 60ft?). There are not only a lot of moving parts, but it's unclear what kind of benchmark we should expect. It's natural to think in terms of 5th edition but if the changes are really big then this could be a poor starting point.

[kazaryu]

It may do... but its also hard to see these things in isolation.

Let's say the ranger as presented was it's final form. Let's say that the spells might change and that hunters mark might be less good...

We still don't know what the average damage level per round in the game will look like. We still don't know what weapons might be available (like are longbow going to be d8 damage and a range of 60ft?). There are not only a lot of moving parts, but it's unclear what kind of benchmark we should expect. It's natural to think in terms of 5th edition but if the changes are really big then this could be a poor starting point.

to be fair, their stated goal is to make things more or less backwards compaatible. so i wouldn't expect any system level changes.

[Mastikator]

A few spells did get updated in the 2nd UA. I bet we'll see more in upcoming UAs.

The changes in the expert UA makes me hopeful about spells, not worried

[AdAstra]

The spells that were explicitly shown seemed nice. Like the new Guidance. Making it only apply once to a person per long rest makes it break the system math less, while having it be a reaction that you can choose to use after the roll fails actually makes it feel more interesting and fun despite the nerf.

It's definitely not great for spells that are explicitly part of class features to not be displayed, though. Especially since some, like Conjure Barrage, were very bad spells for their level in 5e.

[Leon]

Second UA into a major overhaul.

[Jervis]

Second UA into a major overhaul.

Spells now scale off Prof bonus, fireball for example deals 5 + prof d6 damage. Tbh i’m not sure how I’d feel about that

[Gignere]

The spells that were explicitly shown seemed nice. Like the new Guidance. Making it only apply once to a person per long rest makes it break the system math less, while having it be a reaction that you can choose to use after the roll fails actually makes it feel more interesting and fun despite the nerf.

It's definitely not great for spells that are explicitly part of class features to not be displayed, though. Especially since some, like Conjure Barrage, were very bad spells for their level in 5e.

Once per long is probably too big of a nerf but yes getting better than proficiency at least in low levels and the equivalent of expertise when used on proficient skills is probably a bit too much. Maybe once per short rest per target.

[nickl_2000]

Nervous, no not at all.

They have given 2 UAs. There is lots of time to give updated spells and such.

Also, I'm not nervous about 1dnd at all. It's not like my 5e books will stop existing or anything if I hate it.

[Leon]

Spells now scale off Prof bonus, fireball for example deals 5 + prof d6 damage. Tbh i’m not sure how I’d feel about that

And again, second UA into the new thing, there will be a time for spells and details later. Its not what they consider important enough to be early.


It's not like my 5e books will stop existing or anything if I hate it.

Only reason i started playing 5e at all was the cessation of the In person 3.5 game at the start of 2020 and 5e was offered eventually as a option by a new group online, ive all the 3.5e books that matter to me on hand for when i next play it.

[Mastikator]

Spells now scale off Prof bonus, fireball for example deals 5 + prof d6 damage. Tbh i’m not sure how I’d feel about that

Magic missile is 1 + prof d4+1 damage.

Nuclear wizard has been upgraded to anti-matter bomb wizard

[Psyren]

Personally I'd prefer Guidance to be 1/short rest, or PB/LR, rather than 1/long rest. PB/LR would be ideal, although that would probably be too much bookkeeping for each character compared to simply drawing a small box and checking it, followed by unchecking it when the party takes a break.

[Damon_Tor]

Magic missile is 1 + prof d4+1 damage.

Nuclear wizard has been upgraded to anti-matter bomb wizard

I really doubt magic missile's goofy wording survives the edition change.

[ZRN]

So everyone is talking about the ranger and how much damage they can do now because the new Hunters Mark is good and the new TWF works well with it. Swift Quiver is also a part of the discussion to a lesser degree.

Yeah, okay, but am I the only one who thinks it's blindingly obvious that Hunter's Mark will deal it's extra damage just 1 per turn by the time we get to publication?

Am I crazy?

I think it's really unlikely they'd have us playtest a class with multiple major features centered around a specific spell, and not bother to mention that they're completely overhauling that spell. Note that they did include the overhauled Guidance, so it's not like they're specifically avoiding updating the spells in this UA.

With Swift Quiver I'm less confident that they ironed out the wrinkles introduced by action-free dual-wielding.

[animorte]

Spells now scale off Prof bonus, fireball for example deals 5 + prof d6 damage. Tbh i’m not sure how I’d feel about that
Honestly, it looks like they might be limiting the ability to upcast. That automatically scales with your level, hence proficiency bonus. I’ve always hoped they would lean into the use of proficiency bonus more, though I’m not entirely sure this is the correct way to do it.

I was thinking more along the lines of standardizing class features with it. Some features scale with proficiency bonus/short rest or whatever l while other, very similar things within the same class (other subclasses) scale with ability modifier. That’s been extremely inconsistent across the board and ability mod doesn’t scale as well. I like the idea of using both, but I would like to see a new standard for how they’re implemented instead of seemingly plugged in randomly.

Set up all your classes side by side, each level for features sitting in its own box on a spreadsheet and just take a good long horizontal look (panorama, if you will) to make sure the things on that line aren’t all keying off entirely different statistics, for similar effects. Doesn’t seem that hard, but maybe that’s just because it happens to be one of my hobbies.

[KorvinStarmast]

: Anybody else nervous that they aren't showing us updated spells for D&D1?
This play test will last about a year and a half. What's with the panic? :smallconfused:

[Psyren]

This play test will last about a year and a half. What's with the panic? :smallconfused:

Moreover they have explicitly promised to playtest the new and revisied 1DD PHB spells.

[noob]

Spells now scale off Prof bonus, fireball for example deals 5 + prof d6 damage. Tbh i’m not sure how I’d feel about that

So fireball deals even more harm now?
And they basically reinvented caster level.

[Kane0]

Hmm, prof bonus functioning as 'caster level'?
That would be good for basty half casters, but bad for caster v martial balancing in terms of damage. Its basically bringing back an extra portion of quadratic progression.

[Zalabim]

Spells now scale off Prof bonus, fireball for example deals 5 + prof d6 damage. Tbh i’m not sure how I’d feel about that

Thinking about this: Characters have a bunch of numbers associated with them: Proficiency bonus, Character level, ability score, ability modifier, and spell level. So fireball could be (Spell level + proficiency bonus)d6. Magic missile could commit a heresy and deal flat damage like (spell level + proficiency bonus) missiles that deal (Ability modifier) damage.

[Kane0]

Magic missile could commit a heresy and deal flat damage like (spell level + proficiency bonus) missiles that deal (Ability modifier) damage.

Yo dawg I heard you like scaling.

[Sir Chuckles]

to be fair, their stated goal is to make things more or less backwards compaatible. so i wouldn't expect any system level changes.

That was a stated goal and advertised feature of both Starfinder and PF2e. And 3.5e to 3.0e. And, IIRC, some musing of it for 5e.

Frankly, I kinda just tune out "backwards compatible" as a marketing buzzword.

[PhantomSoul]

That was a stated goal and advertised feature of both Starfinder and PF2e. And 3.5e to 3.0e. And, IIRC, some musing of it for 5e.

Frankly, I kinda just tune out "backwards compatible" as a marketing buzzword.

And with how they've used it so far, you're doing it right.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hmm, prof bonus functioning as 'caster level'?
That would be good for basty half casters, but bad for caster v martial balancing in terms of damage. Its basically bringing back an extra portion of quadratic progression. Aye.

Spells now scale off Prof bonus, fireball for example deals 5 + prof d6 damage. Tbh i’m not sure how I’d feel about that Is that in UA 2, or a rumor you heard?

Magic missile is 1 + prof d4+1 damage.
Nuclear wizard has been upgraded to anti-matter bomb wizard
Wizards of the Coast: Narcissus come to life as a game dev team.

Personally I'd prefer Guidance to be 1/short rest, or PB/LR, rather than 1/long rest.
No. It's a cantrip. Treat it like a cantrip.

[Willie the Duck]

Fundamentally, I think backwards compatibility will be like 2e AD&D was to 1e AD&D -- there were different rules, and different things you could play, but if you played characters coming from either version in either ruleset things wouldn't fly off the rails.


So everyone is talking about the ranger and how much damage they can do now because the new Hunters Mark is good and the new TWF works well with it. Swift Quiver is also a part of the discussion to a lesser degree.

Yeah, okay, but am I the only one who thinks it's blindingly obvious that Hunter's Mark will deal it's extra damage just 1 per turn by the time we get to publication?

Am I crazy?
I can't tell you if you are crazy, but I do think you are being premature. They have showed us just Guidance so far because it was the one with a UA-pertinent change. This actually makes me tentatively confident that Hunter's Mark won't have a major change (also: the existing version works very well with the updated two-weapon fighting, and the lack of dueling or Great Weapon Fighting fighting styles on rangers suggests to me that they are trying to revitalize 2wf rangers).

Regarding spells in general, my major fear is more that they won't update some or all of what I consider the problem children -- the invincible-force-effects (leodmund's hut and force wall/cage), the summon/animate/bind/simulacreate-extra-MM/PHB-entry ones (sure the XGtE and TCoE ones are toned down and appropriate, but the PHB ones still exist. Will they be made less disruptive?), the become-a-MM-entry ones, and of course Wish -- plus whichever one I have forgotten, I think we all have a good (slightly different per person) idea of what these are.

As we have seen, they have been getting rid of some of the ur-combos (CBE-SS-hand crossbow spam, PAM-GWM-spam, one-handed quarterstaves with shield and PAM) for martials and some unobvious ways to power (one-handed quarterstaves with shield and PAM again, rogues SA on reactions, and the like). Other than Rangers being able to HM and 2wf while also using bonus actions and concentration for anything else, they haven't raised the bar especially for most things. I am hopeful, but slightly fearful, that they won't do the same thing to the full casters (and the wizards in particular). To me, the biggest way to do that is tone down some of the most egregious spells, and then re-jigger the guidance on rest frequency.


I really doubt magic missile's goofy wording survives the edition change.
That's actually one thing I can see being missed. Unlike other internet-famous builds like coffeelock, sorcadin, barbarian1 moon druid x-1, or Artificer or Cleric 1 plus wizard x-1 or the like, I've only ever seen nuclear wizards amongst the internet minutia-loving crowd. It could well end up being ignored in the same vein as no one fixing Pun-Pun in 3e (because it might be seen as a nifty gimmick that doesn't come up in play).

[Yakk]

Guidance was only a large nerf if you did stuff like the priest constantly fondling the skill monkey all day long (so the 1d4 was always up). (If the skill monkey and the priest are the same person, this still applies). Or if the DM hides DCs almost always.

If you know DCs, and skill rolls are medium-common and not monopolized, the new Guidance can generate a number of additional skill successes per day, in line with a single PC getting a substantial bonus to all checks.

[Psyren]

(If the skill monkey and the priest are the same person, this still applies).

This is more common than you think (Artificer), and with the new Magic Initiate will probably get more common still.



No. It's a cantrip. Treat it like a cantrip.

They're clearly out to limit incessant guidance spam in some way. A flat "no" is neither likely nor productive.

[Arkhios]

I doubt they won't at least show us those spells that have been discussed to death about how bad they are. Spells such as Witch Bolt or True Strike, for example.

[Yakk]

This is more common than you think (Artificer), and with the new Magic Initiate will probably get more common still.
Yes, I'm aware of the self-fondling optimization of guidance.

That is why I mentioned it.

I've also experienced the other-fondling system, when the cleric just constantly cast it on the skill monkey.

My point is that, outside of those optimization "cast it constantly", the new guidance is solid.

[Psyren]

I doubt they won't at least show us those spells that have been discussed to death about how bad they are. Spells such as Witch Bolt or True Strike, for example.

Interesting note - in Baldurs Gate 3, True Strike lasts two rounds instead of one. I wonder if that might be enough to elevate it from trash to situationally useful.



My point is that, outside of those optimization "cast it constantly", the new guidance is solid.

I think so too but I think 1/LR defeats the purpose of it being a cantrip. It should be more often than that, even if it's less spammable than it is now (which I also don't mind.)

Alternatively, if you can only benefit from it once per day, it should last longer than a single roll. An hour of guidance in that time would be nice.

[animorte]

Alternative solution on the matter of Guidance: Just make it a Cleric feature. Oh wait, that's Bardic Inspiration.

[Psyren]

Alternative solution on the matter of Guidance: Just make it a Cleric feature. Oh wait, that's Bardic Inspiration.

It's on the Primal list too, so that's out.

Artificers getting that and Thorn Whip makes me wonder if they'll have access to the Primal list in some way.

[Jervis]

It's on the Primal list too, so that's out.

Artificers getting that and Thorn Whip makes me wonder if they'll have access to the Primal list in some way.

TBH I doubt we’ll see anything else from dndone artificer unless Eberron gets another book. We might see a dmsguild book from the settings creator as a unofficial update but that’s about it I suspect.

[Psyren]

TBH I doubt we’ll see anything else from dndone artificer unless Eberron gets another book. We might see a dmsguild book from the settings creator as a unofficial update but that’s about it I suspect.

Given that they mention Artificer in the UA, I don't think they're going to be neglected. I expect we'll at least get something high level like "Artificers get access to the Arcane list except for Illusions, and Transmutations from the Primal list."

I can see how that's more complicated in the short term than just publishing class spell lists though.

[stoutstien]

Ben pondering on guidance for a few days and while I think the UA went too far to limit it's impact the 5e version is a tad on the heavy side as far as impact goes.

Need a way to split the difference. Maybe word it like the soul knifes knack where you can spam it but it can only turn some many failures into successes or rework it so it only brings up the minimum roll rather than added to max.

[animorte]

Ben pondering on guidance for a few days and while I think the UA went too far to limit it's impact the 5e version is a tad on the heavy side as far as impact goes.

Need a way to split the difference. Maybe word it like the soul knifes knack where you can spam it but it can only turn some many failures into successes or rework it so it only brings up the minimum roll rather than added to max.

Speaking of minimum vs maximum value. Keep it the way it was but allow it to scale exactly as all the other cantrips.

Guidance adds 1 and then it goes up by 1 at 5th level (2), at 11th level (3), and again at 17th level (4).

[Segev]

If Hunter's Mark were going to be nerfed, they would have done it here, where it is a major component of one of the classes. Guidance is not a major component of any of the classes, and they spent word count on nerfing it so hard as to be not worth picking as a cantrip.

[stoutstien]

Speaking of minimum vs maximum value. Keep it the way it was but allow it to scale exactly as all the other cantrips.

Guidance adds 1 and then it goes up by 1 at 5th level (2), at 11th level (3), and again at 17th level (4).

That's an option as well. Still has issues with spamming but you could increase the casting time to counter that.

[Yakk]

If you think it needs to scale, roll [Tier]d4 and pick one.

Then in T4, it is usually (but not always) +4.

[Kane0]

Standard action, touch range, obbious components, concentration up to 10 minutes

[Damon_Tor]

If Hunter's Mark were going to be nerfed, they would have done it here, where it is a major component of one of the classes.

That depends entirely on if they're thinking of this more as testing, or marketing.

[ProsecutorGodot]

That depends entirely on if they're thinking of this more as testing, or marketing.

If they were entirely focused on marketing they wouldn't need iterative testing phases at all. Of course it's both but I'm not so cynical yet to think that they're only releasing these UA to keep people invested until print date.

It might just be too early to tell. We've been given probably 1/10th of the content, if that, and there's quite a bit of it that has been divisive or unpopular, at least in communities I'm keeping tabs on. I suspect this survey data is actually valuable to them because between a lot of the seemingly random mechanical changes there's bits of changes trying to address things that broader parts of the community agree on.

I think it's too early to be worried, if we get to the end of 2023/early 2024 and little to no feedback informed changes have been introduced then we can be a bit nervous.

[Psyren]

If Hunter's Mark were going to be nerfed, they would have done it here, where it is a major component of one of the classes. Guidance is not a major component of any of the classes, and they spent word count on nerfing it so hard as to be not worth picking as a cantrip.

IIRC didn't they propose this version of Hunter's Mark and rescind it before, in the UA leading up to Tasha's? I don't expect that rugpull a second time - new edition is a great excuse to be bolder - but it could happen.



Need a way to split the difference. Maybe word it like the soul knifes knack where you can spam it but it can only turn some many failures into successes or rework it so it only brings up the minimum roll rather than added to max.

Could you elaborate on the bold? Not sure what you mean.

[Amnestic]

Alternative solution on the matter of Guidance: Just make it a Cleric feature. Oh wait, that's Bardic Inspiration.

I baked it into bless. If it's gonna already give 1d4 to attack and saves, may as well extend it to ability checks too.

[Mastikator]

Ben pondering on guidance for a few days and while I think the UA went too far to limit it's impact the 5e version is a tad on the heavy side as far as impact goes.

Need a way to split the difference. Maybe word it like the soul knifes knack where you can spam it but it can only turn some many failures into successes or rework it so it only brings up the minimum roll rather than added to max.

Could set the limit to long or short rest. I think it's better that it's only kinda good rather than dominatingly powerful

[stoutstien]

Could you elaborate on the bold? Not sure what you mean.

Guidance could be worked to treat certain dice results as a fixed value rather than adding an additional die. So you cast it and it turns any 1-4 into a 5 or whatever. It still provides some insurance but it can't actually move your total higher.

[Willie the Duck]

Guidance could be worked to treat certain dice results as a fixed value rather than adding an additional die. So you cast it and it turns any 1-4 into a 5 or whatever. It still provides some insurance but it can't actually move your total higher.

Honestly I wish all of the skill-adders (such as expertise) worked something like that -- such that the range of outcome was still 1 to 20+AttMod+ProfMod. This would reduce the tendency of DMs subconsciously drifting their expectations upward.

[Psyren]

Guidance could be worked to treat certain dice results as a fixed value rather than adding an additional die. So you cast it and it turns any 1-4 into a 5 or whatever. It still provides some insurance but it can't actually move your total higher.

So like mini Reliable Talent?

My issue with this is that unless you make the replacement range very wide (like Reliable Talent does) then most of the time it's not doing anything. Changing every 1-4 into a 5 does absolutely nothing if a 5 would still fail, so it just feels bad/useless. But if you make it 1-9 >> 10 then you're essentially getting an iconic rogue class feature as a cantrip. It's way too swingy an effect for its cost. Whereas a small external bonus actually feels impactful in this game due to Bounded Accuracy and automatic scaling from PB/ASI.


Honestly I wish all of the skill-adders (such as expertise) worked something like that -- such that the range of outcome was still 1 to 20+AttMod+ProfMod. This would reduce the tendency of DMs subconsciously drifting their expectations upward.

As mentioned, we already have that in the form of Reliable Talent. Expertise should be different - eventually, allowing a character with max ability score and magical assistance the ability to reliably succeed even on Nearly Impossible checks.

[Segev]

Frankly, I think that whoever redesigned guidance and anybody who thinks guidance is overpowered is not considering how hard it is to get, and how much it costs those who do take it. Much as I adore the spell, I am almost always weighing it against other cantrips. If it is "too good," it's only "too good" in comparison to other Cleric cantrips; Druids have plenty of solid choices. Cantrips are not a throw-away resource.

I personally think guidance is fine as it is in 5.0. Making it reflexive rather than pre-cast may reflect how a lot of tables use it, but is actually not making it any more powerful: you gain "oh, we need it here and now" and "I would like to concentrate on something else while granting this bonus," but you trade off, "I cast this on the rogue before he runs off to scout." Maybe many tables don't have party members run off to do something without the cleric? I know my experience is that this happens frequently.

I propose the following: take the 5.1 UA-proposed guidance and rename it to grace. Have both spells present in the game. See which one gets chosen more often, or if both are taken. I bet that, yes, as written, grace isn't taken. Now, remove the "once per day per person" restriction from grace, and I bet you'll see a roughly even distribution of the two spells, and possibly even see both taken at once.

The spell that actually should be rewritten to be a reaction in this form is resistance, because saves are too unpredictable to be able to set them up ahead of time, except in rare enough circumstances that resistance isn't worth the cantrip slot. That, too, though, I think need not be limited to once per person per day; the inability to use more than one reaction per round will be plenty of limitation, given how saves tend to hit a number of PCs at once.

[Psyren]

Frankly, I think that whoever redesigned guidance and anybody who thinks guidance is overpowered is not considering how hard it is to get, and how much it costs those who do take it. Much as I adore the spell, I am almost always weighing it against other cantrips. If it is "too good," it's only "too good" in comparison to other Cleric cantrips; Druids have plenty of solid choices. Cantrips are not a throw-away resource.

I personally think guidance is fine as it is in 5.0. Making it reflexive rather than pre-cast may reflect how a lot of tables use it, but is actually not making it any more powerful: you gain "oh, we need it here and now" and "I would like to concentrate on something else while granting this bonus," but you trade off, "I cast this on the rogue before he runs off to scout." Maybe many tables don't have party members run off to do something without the cleric? I know my experience is that this happens frequently.

I propose the following: take the 5.1 UA-proposed guidance and rename it to grace. Have both spells present in the game. See which one gets chosen more often, or if both are taken. I bet that, yes, as written, grace isn't taken. Now, remove the "once per day per person" restriction from grace, and I bet you'll see a roughly even distribution of the two spells, and possibly even see both taken at once.

The spell that actually should be rewritten to be a reaction in this form is resistance, because saves are too unpredictable to be able to set them up ahead of time, except in rare enough circumstances that resistance isn't worth the cantrip slot. That, too, though, I think need not be limited to once per person per day; the inability to use more than one reaction per round will be plenty of limitation, given how saves tend to hit a number of PCs at once.

1) Guidance is not just a cleric spell; it's on the Primal List too. Rogues often go scouting without the cleric, sure, but they very often go WITH the Ranger or Druid, both of whom will be getting Guidance at level 1 now. And Artificers will likely still get it too. All three classes may even just be the party scout themselves, especially if rogue goes live as gutted as it is here.

2) I think you're underestimating how much easier it's going to be to get cantrips in 1DnD. Lots of races get them now (and some even get Guidance itself, e.g. Idyllic Ardling), and every single build can get Magic Initiate at level 1 now. I don't think there'd be a party alive that has nobody get Guidance if it stayed in its current form, Cleric or not. (It's practically a must pick now in 5e, even with how much harder it is to get cantrips in the current edition than it will be in 1DnD.)

[stoutstien]

So like mini Reliable Talent?

My issue with this is that unless you make the replacement range very wide (like Reliable Talent does) then most of the time it's not doing anything. Changing every 1-4 into a 5 does absolutely nothing if a 5 would still fail, so it just feels bad/useless. But if you make it 1-9 >> 10 then you're essentially getting an iconic rogue class feature as a cantrip. It's way too swingy an effect for its cost. Whereas a small external bonus actually feels impactful in this game due to Bounded Accuracy ....

Well if the DCs were modeled to fit bounded accuracy to begin with then most of the issues go away. You shouldn't need expertise, maxed stats, and a good roll to reach the top of the scale.(Sometimes adding on additional values).
I picked 5 because that would mean you have protection from blowing a check solely due to the extemly poor roll. At lv 5 the minimal roll of 5 would give relevant PCs auto pass on DC 10s.

You could even word it so it scales with your ability and/or Prof mod.

[Psyren]

Well if the DCs were modeled to fit bounded accuracy to begin with then most of the issues go away. You shouldn't need expertise, maxed stats, and a good roll to reach the top of the scale.(Sometimes adding on additional values).
I picked 5 because that would mean you have protection from blowing a check solely due to the extemly poor roll. At lv 5 the minimal roll of 5 would give relevant PCs auto pass on DC 10s.

You could even word it so it scales with your ability and/or Prof mod.

You really shouldn't be failing DC 10 anyway unless it's something you have no business rolling. It just becomes a win-more feature, or tassels on a bicycle. I'd vastly prefer +1d4 over that; that at least might make the difference between hitting a 20 or not.

[Yakk]

Well if the DCs were modeled to fit bounded accuracy to begin with then most of the issues go away. You shouldn't need expertise, maxed stats, and a good roll to reach the top of the scale.(Sometimes adding on additional values).
I picked 5 because that would mean you have protection from blowing a check solely due to the extemly poor roll. At lv 5 the minimal roll of 5 would give relevant PCs auto pass on DC 10s.

You could even word it so it scales with your ability and/or Prof mod.

"When someone makes an attribute check lower than their attribute, as a reaction they can reroll and use the higher value".

[Segev]

1) Guidance is not just a cleric spell; it's on the Primal List too. Rogues often go scouting without the cleric, sure, but they very often go WITH the Ranger or Druid, both of whom will be getting Guidance at level 1 now. And Artificers will likely still get it too. All three classes may even just be the party scout themselves, especially if rogue goes live as gutted as it is here.

2) I think you're underestimating how much easier it's going to be to get cantrips in 1DnD. Lots of races get them now (and some even get Guidance itself, e.g. Idyllic Ardling), and every single build can get Magic Initiate at level 1 now. I don't think there'd be a party alive that has nobody get Guidance if it stayed in its current form, Cleric or not. (It's practically a must pick now in 5e, even with how much harder it is to get cantrips in the current edition than it will be in 1DnD.)As it is currently written in this UA, I predict that the only people who will take it will be those who get it as a ribbon they can't trade for a better cantrip.

Once-per-day cantrips are just a waste of build resources, unless they're actually as powerful as 2nd level spells, or "once per day" really means "all day breakfast spell."


You really shouldn't be failing DC 10 anyway unless it's something you have no business rolling. It just becomes a win-more feature, or tassels on a bicycle. I'd vastly prefer +1d4 over that; that at least might make the difference between hitting a 20 or not.By this logic, you shouldn't be calling for rolls that are DC 10. Bounded accuracy and the design principles behind it mean you absolutely do fail DC 10 a fair bit of the time. A 10 in a stat isn't "you have no business even trying." It's, "You're average at this." A DC 10 with a 10 in a stat is a 55% chance of success (and thus a 45% chance of failure). A DC 10 with proficiency and a 12 in the stat in Tier 1 is a 70% chance of success, or a 30% chance of failure. 30% is not a negligible chance of failure. Characters who have proficiency to a skill but only 10 in the stat are not characters who "have no business rolling" those checks. They're average people with training; they absolutely should be rolling those checks. They also "should" be failing roughly 30% of the time.

[stoutstien]

You really shouldn't be failing DC 10 anyway unless it's something you have no business rolling. It just becomes a win-more feature, or tassels on a bicycle. I'd vastly prefer +1d4 over that; that at least might make the difference between hitting a 20 or not.

But you can currently. that's the point. Even with maxed ability and Prof you don't guarantee a pass of DC 10 until lv 13. The old guidance does address this but it also pushes the upper limits which in turns pulls DCs up to keep everything in line.

You need to keep some risk of failure on the board or no reason to roll but OTOH investments should be useful. It's not a hard line to walk really but for some reason they haven't hit the mark.

[Psyren]

But you can currently. that's the point. Even with maxed ability and Prof you don't guarantee a pass of DC 10 until lv 13. The old guidance does address this but it also pushes the upper limits which in turns pulls DCs up to keep everything in line.

You need to keep some risk of failure on the board or no reason to roll but OTOH investments should be useful. It's not a hard line to walk really but for some reason they haven't hit the mark.

I don't think DCs get "pulled up" just because Guidance exists. Nor do I think Guidance is intended to be used on Easy checks, and those are the only ones where it's likely to make a difference as you've described it since even a guaranteed 5 is going to fail everywhere else.

I understand what you're going for here but I vastly prefer both the old and new Guidance to this.


As it is currently written in this UA, I predict that the only people who will take it will be those who get it as a ribbon they can't trade for a better cantrip.

Once-per-day cantrips are just a waste of build resources, unless they're actually as powerful as 2nd level spells, or "once per day" really means "all day breakfast spell."

I agree that 1/day Guidance isn't good either. That's why I was proposing either it being 1/SR for a given target (or even 1/SR + Initiative, kind of like how the Epic Boons work), or if it must be 1/LR, lasting for an hour's worth of checks. Something that makes it still be useful while curtailing the constant spam.



By this logic, you shouldn't be calling for rolls that are DC 10. Bounded accuracy and the design principles behind it mean you absolutely do fail DC 10 a fair bit of the time. A 10 in a stat isn't "you have no business even trying." It's, "You're average at this." A DC 10 with a 10 in a stat is a 55% chance of success (and thus a 45% chance of failure). A DC 10 with proficiency and a 12 in the stat in Tier 1 is a 70% chance of success, or a 30% chance of failure. 30% is not a negligible chance of failure. Characters who have proficiency to a skill but only 10 in the stat are not characters who "have no business rolling" those checks. They're average people with training; they absolutely should be rolling those checks. They also "should" be failing roughly 30% of the time.

If someone has both proficiency and a high ASI, I likely wouldn't be calling for a DC 10 check a lot of the time, no. So while you might not agree with my reasoning here, I'm not being inconsistent.

[Segev]

I agree that 1/day Guidance isn't good either. That's why I was proposing either it being 1/SR for a given target (or even 1/SR + Initiative, kind of like how the Epic Boons work), or if it must be 1/LR, lasting for an hour's worth of checks. Something that makes it still be useful while curtailing the constant spam.Fair enough. I dislike "curtailing spam" on it. That's the point of cantrips. If you want to curtail spam, make it 1st level and buff it so that it's useful enough to warrant the spell slot.


If someone has both proficiency and a high ASI, I likely wouldn't be calling for a DC 10 check a lot of the time, no. So while you might not agree with my reasoning here, I'm not being inconsistent.Note that I specifically referenced having an ability score of 10 or 12, even in my "with proficiency" examples. That's not "a high ASI."

Still, I get your point. I do think you're off base a bit, though, if a mere +2 or +3 is enough to make it "high." Would you also not call for a roll if the DC was 15 and the bonus was a total of +8, or the DC was 20 and the bonus averaged +13 (perhaps with guidance spam, as that's kind-of topical for this thread)?

[Psyren]

Note that I specifically referenced having an ability score of 10 or 12, even in my "with proficiency" examples. That's not "a high ASI."

In which case I covered that with "no business rolling." 10 ability score means you have no talent, you're equivalent to a commoner as far as X is concerned. What would be Easy for someone with talent is not so easy for you; so long as the consequence of failure is meaningful, a roll is therefore warranted.


Still, I get your point. I do think you're off base a bit, though, if a mere +2 or +3 is enough to make it "high." Would you also not call for a roll if the DC was 15 and the bonus was a total of +8, or the DC was 20 and the bonus averaged +13 (perhaps with guidance spam, as that's kind-of topical for this thread)?

+2/+3 from ability score isn't "mere" at low levels, +3 is literally as naturally talented as you can possibly be starting out, i.e. a prodigy. It means you have 6-7 more points of talent than a commoner. I think that's a bigger deal than you imply.

Bonus of +8 means you have talent, training, AND magical assistance (high roll on guidance.) Or talent and exceptional training (expertise) with magical assistance (low roll on guidance.)
Bonus of +13 means you have exceptional talent, exceptional training, AND magic.

Yes, both of those situations would factor into whether I bother calling for a roll, even for something that is nominally Medium or Hard. And even if I did, the consequence for failure would take all those factors into account (i.e. I'd probably err more on the side of "progress + setback" than "no progress, fall on your face.")

[Segev]

In which case I covered that with "no business rolling." 10 ability score means you have no talent, you're equivalent to a commoner as far as X is concerned. What would be Easy for someone with talent is not so easy for you; so long as the consequence of failure is meaningful, a roll is therefore warranted.I now am unsure what you're saying. If I have 10 in, say, Intelligence, and am a 1st level Bard trained in History, do you simply not permit me to make any Intelligence(History) checks that are "easy," if there are significant/interesting consequences for failure and for success? I would have a +2 to the roll, so if the DC was 10, I would have a 65% chance of success and a 35% chance of failure. Do I have "no business" making such a check?


+2/+3 from ability score isn't "mere" at low levels, +3 is literally as naturally talented as you can possibly be starting out, i.e. a prodigy. It means you have 6-7 more points of talent than a commoner. I think that's a bigger deal than you imply.I didn't say "+2 / +3 from ability score." I said "+0 / +1 from ability score, with +2 from proficiency." You're untalented or minimally talented, but you've got training. As much training as is possible without a class feature to double proficiency, in fact.


Bonus of +8 means you have talent, training, AND magical assistance (high roll on guidance.) Or talent and exceptional training (expertise) with magical assistance (low roll on guidance.)
Bonus of +13 means you have exceptional talent, exceptional training, AND magic.Right, but do you have "no business" making a Hard check?

Obviously, your answer is "no," but you said that - and I have to infer, here, that you don't mean "actually zero" but merely "very slim" - if you have a chance to fail a DC 10 check, you have no business making the check. What I am asking you is, does this mean that a character who took proficiency in something he doesn't have a very high stat in has no business rolling for anything that that would be called upon?

Again: If I have 10 in the ability score and +2 from proficiency, do I have no business rolling an Ability(Skill) check in which I have proficiency in the skill if its DC is 10?


Yes, both of those situations would factor into whether I bother calling for a roll, even for something that is nominally Medium or Hard. And even if I did, the consequence for failure would take all those factors into account (i.e. I'd probably err more on the side of "progress + setback" than "no progress, fall on your face.")
I know, your process is first deciding whether people have any business succeeding before you allow them to even attempt the roll, and you set DCs based on how hard you think it is for individual PCs. I'm just puzzled that this seems to extend to "yeah, DC 10 is listed in the books, but if you have a meaningful chance of failing that, you have no business even trying," which - unless you explain to me where I'm misunderstanding - suggests to me that being trained in something but not talented means that they have no business even trying EASY tasks. Or that no tasks are easy.

I do still say your procedure is...flawed...when it essentially throws out the lower band of DCs entirely and requires high bonuses before you even permit people to try a roll. :smallconfused:

[AdAstra]

I think people are seriously overstating how big of a deal this nerf is. On average the old Guidance only has a 12.5% chance of being the difference between success and failure per roll (without [dis]advantage). How often does one character make so many ability checks per day (and realistically, only out of combat checks, since the old Guidance isn’t worth it in combat) that the new guidance is actually at a serious disadvantage? If the character succeeds, you don’t need to use it, and if they fail, you can usually guess whether it can make a difference. I’d argue that the old guidance is only significantly better than the new one at out of combat checks if the same character’s making ~10 or more ability checks per day, otherwise the difference is likely to be small. And when you’re talking guidance, a small difference is warranted.

I can also see the new guidance encouraging more characters to use skills even if they’re not the best at it. Sure, the Monk only has +3 to survival vs the Ranger’s +5, but the Ranger’s already received Guidance today, so The Monk might actually be better suited. It naturally encourages spotlight shifting to an extent (people who really specialize in something will still be sufficiently good at it to wipe out the potential difference from guidance, as well, so that specialization still matters, too). It’s not a massive difference and I don’t think it’s a great reason to change the spell in and of itself, but it is there and I do like it.

[Segev]

I think people are seriously overstating how big of a deal this nerf is. On average the old Guidance only has a 12.5% chance of being the difference between success and failure per roll (without disadvantage). How often does one character make so many ability checks per day (and realistically, only out of combat checks, since the old Guidance isn’t worth it in combat) that the new guidance is actually at a serious disadvantage? If the character succeeds, you don’t need to use it, and if they fail, you can usually guess whether it can make a difference. I’d argue that the old guidance is only significantly better than the new one at out of combat checks if the same character’s making ~10 or more ability checks per day, otherwise the difference is likely to be small. And when you’re talking guidance, a small difference is warranted.

I can also see the new guidance encouraging more characters to use skills even if they’re not the best at it. Sure, the Monk only has +3 to survival vs the Ranger’s +5, but the Ranger’s already received Guidance today, so The Monk might actually be better suited. It naturally encourages spotlight shifting to an extent.

If it makes little difference, why make the change? And how does it encourage you to make more off-peak skill checks if you can get guidance once per day than if you can have it any time you ask the cleric or druid to bless your actions?

[Psyren]

I now am unsure what you're saying. If I have 10 in, say, Intelligence, and am a 1st level Bard trained in History, do you simply not permit me to make any Intelligence(History) checks that are "easy," if there are significant/interesting consequences for failure and for success? I would have a +2 to the roll, so if the DC was 10, I would have a 65% chance of success and a 35% chance of failure. Do I have "no business" making such a check?
...
I didn't say "+2 / +3 from ability score." I said "+0 / +1 from ability score, with +2 from proficiency." You're untalented or minimally talented, but you've got training. As much training as is possible without a class feature to double proficiency, in fact.

As I've said every time you and others have tried to pin me down on this, whether I forego a check or not depends on the check. It's not something I'll ever be able to definitively answer in a whiteroom forum vacuum. I understand if that's unsatisfying, but that's the way it is.

What I will say is that if you are both highly talented AND trained - i.e. +3 ability score and +2 from proficiency - my chances of calling for a DC 10 check are indeed low, and even if I do, "failure" would be calibrated in such a way that such a result is not slapstick or incongruous. For Medium and Hard checks, I refer back to what I said in my previous post.



I know, your process is first deciding whether people have any business succeeding before you allow them to even attempt the roll, and you set DCs based on how hard you think it is for individual PCs.

Yes to the first part, no to the second (you're conflating me with other posters like RSP.)

[AdAstra]

If it makes little difference, why make the change? And how does it encourage you to make more off-peak skill checks if you can get guidance once per day than if you can have it any time you ask the cleric or druid to bless your actions?

Because it's still a limiter to the spell's power. It's not like it will never be weaker, it's just not much weaker. Having it be a reaction also likely makes it better for parties that aren't making the most of it (because the most optimal way to use the old Guidance was honestly very annoying), which is good, too.

As for why it encourages off-peak skill checks, it's because the person with the highest bonus can still only receive the new Guidance once per LR. So if they've already gotten it, a person with a slightly lower bonus that hasn't gotten it can have a better chance of success. A person with a +5 and Guidance is (assuming decent knowledge of how likely success is) more likely to succeed than a person with a +6 without it. As mentioned, it's a small effect, only mattering if the bonuses are very close, but it is likely to change the thinking around the spell a bit.

[KorvinStarmast]

Frankly, I think that whoever redesigned guidance and anybody who thinks guidance is overpowered is not considering how hard it is to get, and how much it costs those who do take it. Concur.

Much as I adore the spell, I am almost always weighing it against other cantrips. If it is "too good," it's only "too good" in comparison to other Cleric cantrips; Druids have plenty of solid choices. Cantrips are not a throw-away resource. As currently written, correct.

I personally think guidance is fine as it is in 5.0.
Me too. Don't fix what isn't broken.


I propose the following: take the 5.1 UA-proposed guidance and rename it to grace.
Have both spells present in the game.
See which one gets chosen more often, or if both are taken.
I bet that, yes, as written, grace isn't taken.
Now, remove the "once per day per person" restriction from grace, and I bet you'll see a roughly even distribution of the two spells, and possibly even see both taken at once. Gee, what a concept: play test. :smallsmile: With a basis for comparison.

The spell that actually should be rewritten to be a reaction in this form is resistance, because saves are too unpredictable to be able to set them up ahead of time, except in rare enough circumstances that resistance isn't worth the cantrip slot. That, too, though, I think need not be limited to once per person per day; the inability to use more than one reaction per round will be plenty of limitation, given how saves tend to hit a number of PCs at once. Nice idea, I'll mention that in the feedback. +1 for Segev! :smallsmile:

Once-per-day cantrips are just a waste of build resources, Concur.

Fair enough. I dislike "curtailing spam" on it. That's the point of cantrips. If you want to curtail spam, make it 1st level and buff it so that it's useful enough to warrant the spell slot. This!

[Psyren]

If their goal is to fix or nerf guidance, then making something completely new called "grace" is not going to help in any way, shape or form.

If they did that, at best Guidance would stay exactly as popular as it currently is and the new thing gets ignored. At worst, now the DM has twice as many bufftrips to keep track of in every party.


Because it's still a limiter to the spell's power. It's not like it will never be weaker, it's just not much weaker. Having it be a reaction also likely makes it better for parties that aren't making the most of it (because the most optimal way to use the old Guidance was honestly very annoying), which is good, too.

As for why it encourages off-peak skill checks, it's because the person with the highest bonus can still only receive the new Guidance once per LR. So if they've already gotten it, a person with a slightly lower bonus that hasn't gotten it can have a better chance of success. A person with a +5 and Guidance is (assuming decent knowledge of how likely success is) more likely to succeed than a person with a +6 without it. As mentioned, it's a small effect, only mattering if the bonuses are very close, but it is likely to change the thinking around the spell a bit.

Concur.

[Segev]

Because it's still a limiter to the spell's power. It's not like it will never be weaker, it's just not much weaker. Having it be a reaction also likely makes it better for parties that aren't making the most of it (because the most optimal way to use the old Guidance was honestly very annoying), which is good, too.

As for why it encourages off-peak skill checks, it's because the person with the highest bonus can still only receive the new Guidance once per LR. So if they've already gotten it, a person with a slightly lower bonus that hasn't gotten it can have a better chance of success. A person with a +5 and Guidance is (assuming decent knowledge of how likely success is) more likely to succeed than a person with a +6 without it. As mentioned, it's a small effect, only mattering if the bonuses are very close, but it is likely to change the thinking around the spell a bit.I see what you mean in the second paragraph. If it isn't "much" weaker, then why are they "fixing" it? Either it's so broken it needs a fix, or it isn't. A minor tweak isn't going to take something from "definitely broken" to "definitely not broken."

The trouble is, I disagree that this makes "little" difference. I think the new guidance will be taken almost never, unless it is given for free along with other stuff that the player wants and he can't trade it out for a different cantrip.

5.0 guidance may not make the difference that often, but you can use it often enough that it will make a difference often enough. 5.1 guidance as written in this UA will make the difference only slightly more often when used at all, but can be used far less often. And all it takes is a character having guidance make a difference twice in a single day for it to be 100% better than this UA's version. Or make a difference ONCE, when the one use of 5.1 didn't wind up making the difference!


If their goal is to fix or nerf guidance, then making something completely new called "grace" is not going to help in any way, shape or form.That depends what it is they're trying to fix. If the primary focus is, "Players are treating it like a reaction in real play, anyway," then having both actually makes sense, since they have strongly different use cases. "It's being cast too often!" is more in your point's favor, though.

Either way, I propose this more as a playtest thing than as a final result (unless the goal is to have both a reflexive version and a version you can bless somebody with so they can use it later on).


If they did that, at best Guidance would stay exactly as popular as it currently is and the new thing gets ignored. At worst, now the DM has twice as many bufftrips to keep track of in every party.Sure, if they keep the once per day thing. I suspect that grace and guidance, both unlimited per day, would be competitive. I am in the "it isn't broke, so don't fix it," camp, though, on this one.

There's an often-forgotten cost to making these things reactions, too. (I am thinking of Bardic Inspiration as well, now.) Reactions are a much more limited bit of economy during combat, when the difference between pre-casting and reaction casting is most likely to matter.

...also, for a druid who uses wild shape in combat, grace is significantly less useful than guidance if you care about ability checks during combat/when wild shaped. A druid in 5.0 can take guidance and use it on himself or the rogue before wild shaping and going scouting (possibly with the rogue). A druid in 5.1 will have to also have the ability to cast spells while wild shaped if he isn't going to be restricted from casting guidance on either himself or the rogue should they suddenly need the skill boost.

All in all, the UA version of 5.1 guidance is such a huge nerf that I think it will actually be a trap option for those few who do deign to try taking it. It will often be less possible to use than 5.0 guidance would have been, meaning that even if you haven't expended your 1/day use on that person, it may not be possible to use it when that 1/day use would've been clutch.

It's just a bad change. Making a reaction version MIGHT be warranted for different build types. But removing 5.0 guidance is... I mean, it's not the end of the world, or anything, but if you're going to remove the spell from the game, don't waste the word count on a trap option that nobody who knows better will take.

[Kane0]

Guidance could be worked to treat certain dice results as a fixed value rather than adding an additional die. So you cast it and it turns any 1-4 into a 5 or whatever. It still provides some insurance but it can't actually move your total higher.

Thats actually kinda brilliant. Because it only changes chances of results within the existing range instead of expanding it you can have it scale with level like other cantrips and could also be applied to resistance and true strike in the same way.

Permission to steal?

[KorvinStarmast]

Too fiddly, not worth breaking a cantrip over. It works fine.
The complaints about munchkinism (casting guidance all the time) needs to be addressed Player to DM, not by screwing up a spell that isn't broken.

See also Deming's definitions of tampering ...

[Amnestic]

Too fiddly, not worth breaking a cantrip over. It works fine.
The complaints about munchkinism (casting guidance all the time) needs to be addressed Player to DM, not by screwing up a spell that isn't broken.


It clearly doesn't work fine if there needs to be a specific conversation about its use in a way which the rules allow for.

[stoutstien]

Thats actually kinda brilliant. Because it only changes chances of results within the existing range instead of expanding it you can have it scale with level like other cantrips and could also be applied to resistance and true strike in the same way.

Permission to steal?

Always when it comes to my mussing lol. All problems are shallow with enough eyes.

A solid half of the homebrew I use is acquired from some place or another. One reason I run 5e is how amicable it is to little changes

*Been toying with this type of thing like truestrike funny enough. Still in early testing but i think this angle is a huge opportunity to add some features without shifting the scale. Bounded accuracy is a good premise but they failed to stick to it. even before they got out of the PHB.
IMO this is where magic/spells should shine. Less about constantly resetting the boundaries of possibility and more along the lines of consistency. Person taste and all that of course.*

[KorvinStarmast]

It clearly doesn't work fine if there needs to be a specific conversation about its use in a way which the rules allow for. Sorry, it's a people problem. I have seen zero problems in play at our tables with guidance.

[KorvinStarmast]

Guidance could be worked to treat certain dice results as a fixed value rather than adding an additional die. So you cast it and it turns any 1-4 into a 5 or whatever. It still provides some insurance but it can't actually move your total higher.Beyond it being an underwhelming riff off of Reliable talent ..
that's a mechanically interesting hack that is a negative application of divine / primal influence rather than a positive one.

This suggestion is
"please don't let me screw up"
rather than
"please make possible what wasn't without {divine} guidance"

The positive intention is preferable. Notice how they didn't apply negative numbers for non proficiency, but added numbers for proficiency? Notice how they (until the mistakes in volos) had NO negative stat modifiers for PC origin/race choices?

Accentuate the positive. Make the unlikely possible.

If you boost the die from 1d4 to 1d6 to 1d8 to 1d10 at the tier breaks, maybe ...

[Amnestic]

Sorry, it's a people problem. I have seen zero problems in play at our tables with guidance.

"My players didn't use the spell optimally and therefore it's not a problem spell" is great for you and yours but that's not universal. You can dismiss any mechanical issue as a "people problem" if the solution is "just ask your players not to do the thing that makes it a problem." How about the designers don't cause the problem that needs the conversation in the first place?

[Segev]

Even using it optimally, it isn't a problem spell.

[stoutstien]

Beyond it being an underwhelming riff off of Reliable talent ..
that's a mechanically interesting hack that is a negative application of divine / primal influence rather than a positive one.

This suggestion is
"please don't let me screw up"
rather than
"please make possible what wasn't without {divine} guidance"

The positive intention is preferable. Notice how they didn't apply negative numbers for non proficiency, but added numbers for proficiency? Notice how they (until the mistakes in volos) had NO negative stat modifiers for PC origin/race choices?

Accentuate the positive. Make the unlikely possible.

If you boost the die from 1d4 to 1d6 to 1d8 to 1d10 at the tier breaks, maybe ...

Everything is rift on a different mechanic. That's games in general and 5e is a wide but shallow system once you remove the paint.

As far as the flavor side I'd say 9/10 when I'm praying it's to not mess something up that I know i should be capable at rather than asking for divine inspiration to save me from impossible. Either way it was just an idea. Some tables have no issue with it as is but others obviously do to the point they are spit balling changes. might as well toss some lateral thinking into the mix

[Yakk]

Even using it optimally, it isn't a problem spell.
"Ok DM, the cleric is going to touch and cast guideance on the skill monkey whenever the spell ends from now until forever" is just silly.

The other optimal use is "Ok DM, the artificer casts it on themselves every minute at all times, and after each skill check recasts it unless there is time pressure at that moment."

Both are pretty, well, silly.

The first one is divine fondling. The second is self-fondling.

What more, using them NOT like the above is a real pain. Every time a PC wants to make a skill check, they have to say "cleric, can you bless me", and the cleric says "yes". And if they don't, they lose out on +1d4. Or you have to make that a macro -- whenever you try something, the cleric always blesses you first. But sometimes it isn't simple, so the DM negotiates every time someone makes a skill check? Or do you have to put in the magic words before every check?

[Amnestic]

Even using it optimally, it isn't a problem spell.

It being spammable encourages weird behaviours where mechanically it makes sense but narratively it feels weird.

That's a problem to me - that last bit I'd assumed was implicit but I may as well say it explicitly too. That it doesn't 'break' mechanical balance* doesn't mean it's not a problem. Bad design doesn't just mean "numbers too big".

*though it's still consistently rated as one of the best (and often even the best) cantrips in the game

[Segev]

"Ok DM, the cleric is going to touch and cast guideance on the skill monkey whenever the spell ends from now until forever" is just silly.

The other optimal use is "Ok DM, the artificer casts it on themselves every minute at all times, and after each skill check recasts it unless there is time pressure at that moment."

Both are pretty, well, silly.

The first one is divine fondling. The second is self-fondling.

What more, using them NOT like the above is a real pain. Every time a PC wants to make a skill check, they have to say "cleric, can you bless me", and the cleric says "yes". And if they don't, they lose out on +1d4. Or you have to make that a macro -- whenever you try something, the cleric always blesses you first. But sometimes it isn't simple, so the DM negotiates every time someone makes a skill check? Or do you have to put in the magic words before every check?


It being spammable encourages weird behaviours where mechanically it makes sense but narratively it feels weird.

That's a problem to me - that last bit I'd assumed was implicit but I may as well say it explicitly too. That it doesn't 'break' mechanical balance* doesn't mean it's not a problem. Bad design doesn't just mean "numbers too big".

*though it's still consistently rated as one of the best (and often even the best) cantrips in the game
This doesn't bother me. It doesn't seem narratively weird at all. Receiving blessings and prayers from your party priest, working with your favorite tool and performing little luck rituals with it before important tasks, all seem perfectly reasonable in-character things to be doing in a setting where piety and luck can be literal power sources.

People do that kind of thing IRL even when they DO NOT believe it really works, just because it feels better than not doing it. Or are you telling me you know nobody who has little rituals and odd behaviors they perform surrounding their dice, even if it's as little as switching out ones that are "rolling bad tonight?"

The reaction casting is no less awkward, either. "Oh, hold up there, Bob, let me bless you while you fumble that." I can paint it as just as ridiculous as you paint "May Lathander guide your steps" as a thing the cleric regularly says to people.

[KorvinStarmast]

How about the designers don't cause the problem that needs the conversation in the first place? You keep using that word.
Problem.
I don't think it means what you think it means.

People do that kind of thing IRL even when they DO NOT believe it really works, just because it feels better than not doing it. Or are you telling me you know nobody who has little rituals and odd behaviors they perform surrounding their dice, even if it's as little as switching out ones that are "rolling bad tonight?"
That too.

[Yakk]

This doesn't bother me. It doesn't seem narratively weird at all. Receiving blessings and prayers from your party priest, working with your favorite tool and performing little luck rituals with it before important tasks, all seem perfectly reasonable in-character things to be doing in a setting where piety and luck can be literal power sources.
Again, the blessing happening every minute for the entire day.

So when the skill monkey is asked to make a perception check, the +1d4 is there.

Unless the skill monkey was away from the cleric for more than 1 minute.

It is narratively silly and play optimal.

[stoutstien]

Another odd thought but if a table is okay with it being casted consistently why not just make it a ritual and make it a first level spell. It honestly just add it to ceremony and it would make sense.

[Psyren]

Another odd thought but if a table is okay with it being casted consistently why not just make it a ritual and make it a first level spell. It honestly just add it to ceremony and it would make sense.

"Keep him talking for 8 more minutes, almost there!"



The reaction casting is no less awkward, either. "Oh, hold up there, Bob, let me bless you while you fumble that."

"Hmm, my god is telling me you should actually cut the blue wire" :smallbiggrin:

Kidding aside, I mean... for me the ability to use it while concentrating on something else is by far the best change. Which is something I believe a number of new players/DMs were overlooking anyway. Now you can for example combine Guidance + Enhance Ability in a low-level party, that's pretty huge for exploration and social challenges early on.

[Amnestic]

You keep using that word.
Problem.
I don't think it means what you think it means.

I think it means "it would be better if this spell were changed." What do you think it means?


This doesn't bother me. It doesn't seem narratively weird at all. Receiving blessings and prayers from your party priest, working with your favorite tool and performing little luck rituals with it before important tasks, all seem perfectly reasonable in-character things to be doing in a setting where piety and luck can be literal power sources.

People do that kind of thing IRL even when they DO NOT believe it really works, just because it feels better than not doing it. Or are you telling me you know nobody who has little rituals and odd behaviors they perform surrounding their dice, even if it's as little as switching out ones that are "rolling bad tonight?"

The reaction casting is no less awkward, either. "Oh, hold up there, Bob, let me bless you while you fumble that." I can paint it as just as ridiculous as you paint "May Lathander guide your steps" as a thing the cleric regularly says to people.

You're not "receiving prayers from the party priest". They are casting a spell with V and S components. V components which are melodic intonations that are clearly recognisable as spellcasting and not just talking.

If you don't think casting a spell every single minute on the off chance that you have to make a perception check or investigation check or knowledge check or whatever isn't narratively weird then I dunno what to tell you.

[Segev]

Again, the blessing happening every minute for the entire day.Not necessary, as we'll discuss in a moment. But a blessing before each time you do something important enough for a skill check, or you separate from the party to do something? Sure, works for me.


So when the skill monkey is asked to make a perception check, the +1d4 is there.

Unless the skill monkey was away from the cleric for more than 1 minute.

It is narratively silly and play optimal.That's using perception checks wrong. In 5e, you're not supposed to "call for perception" just because something unexpected might be noticed. You instead are supposed to use passive perception for such ongoing activities. And guidance, notably, doesn't add to that. If, on the other hand, the skill monkey (or the cleric, himself, who likely has high wisdom and may well be proficient in perception) decides to take a moment to really look around for anything he might have missed, the cleric absolutely can cast his spell to guide that search.

So, to reiterate, no need to re-cast it every minute. Ability checks aren't performed in a timeframe that would require it like that. Unless you're in combat, I suppose, but if you're casting a spell with verbal components every minute, you're giving up a lot of stealth potential, too. So trade-offs.


"Hmm, my god is telling me you should actually cut the blue wire" :smallbiggrin::biggrin:


Kidding aside, I mean... for me the ability to use it while concentrating on something else is by far the best change. Which is something I believe a number of new players/DMs were overlooking anyway. Now you can for example combine Guidance + Enhance Ability in a low-level party, that's pretty huge for exploration and social challenges early on.Sure, that's why I suggested that grace might be a good spell to ALSO have available, even if it's "5.1 guidance but without the daily limitation." Both versions are useful. Both have drawbacks. These mostly don't overlap.


You're not "receiving prayers from the party priest". They are casting a spell with V and S components. V components which are melodic intonations that are clearly recognisable as spellcasting and not just talking.I'm not sure why V components of firm incantations with ritual gestures can't be a clerical blessing. I mean, divine magic is often essentially just that: blessings and the like. So...not sure how this is a refutation of anything, nor supporting your point. I agree with you on what it is. I don't see the problem with getting the ritual blessing before the rogue picks the lock, for example. Even every time he tries.


If you don't think casting a spell every single minute on the off chance that you have to make a perception check or investigation check or knowledge check or whatever isn't narratively weird then I dunno what to tell you.
None of those are things you need to spontaneously make with no warning, as a general rule. Even the knowledge check is something you can stunt as pausing to think about, and maybe asking the cleric for guidance to help you remember before you make the roll.

The DM is, of course, free to say you can't do that, and thus validate your claim that guidance must optimally be cast every minute on the minute, though at that point: remember that it takes Concentration, so only one PC is going to have the constant guidance up anyway. Were I DMing, I would generally allow anything where timing wasn't crucial (and only combat is likely to have that kind of timing precision) to have some communication between PCs result in the cleric providing guidance if he wants.

[Psyren]

Sure, that's why I suggested that grace might be a good spell to ALSO have available, even if it's "5.1 guidance but without the daily limitation." Both versions are useful. Both have drawbacks. These mostly don't overlap.

I totally get that you view "instead of changing the thing they clearly want to change, they should leave it alone and make this new thing instead" as a compromise, but I... suspect they won't see it that way.



I'm not sure why V components of firm incantations with ritual gestures can't be a clerical blessing. I mean, divine magic is often essentially just that: blessings and the like. So...not sure how this is a refutation of anything, nor supporting your point. I agree with you on what it is. I don't see the problem with getting the ritual blessing before the rogue picks the lock, for example. Even every time he tries.

I'm with Amnestic on this one - even if the verbal component truly is a prayer, spamming the same prayer every minute/hour/all day seems like it would get grating. And it definitely would have to be the same one since whatever you're saying has to be recognizable as Guidance specifically.

[Leon]

Sorry, it's a people problem.

This is the core of almost all issues with 5e, its by no means a perfect game but most of the frequent issues that come up on forums are not core game design issues (like the mythical caster/non caster divide) but rather play generated quibbles or choices of how they play the game. If you have a group where someone is expecting another to constantly hover over them and provide this spell effect ~ thats not a problem with the spell or the class providing it nor should the designers have to step in and say well you can only do this X per day per person (yet here we are, so there is some bleed over with player incompetency influencing Dev choices and being worse for everyone)

[Kane0]

Not particularly worried since there are so many spells that some are bound to be corkers and stinkers. As a 'brewer its easy to hammer in those sticking nails as long as classes arent built around them.

Oh wait.

[Segev]

I totally get that you view "instead of changing the thing they clearly want to change, they should leave it alone and make this new thing instead" as a compromise, but I... suspect they won't see it that way.It started as a way to test – or illustrate – what aspects of the changes are acceptable vs. not. The idea to actually keep both is less "compromise" and more "suggestion" because I see value in both casting times/duration combinations.

I'm with Amnestic on this one - even if the verbal component truly is a prayer, spamming the same prayer every minute/hour/all day seems like it would get grating. And it definitely would have to be the same one since whatever you're saying has to be recognizable as Guidance specifically.The counterargument I made to this is that there is no need to spam it every minute you're adventuring because there is no reason a skill check will "sneak up" on you, due to how passives work.

Thus is why Resistance should absolutely be reshaped into a reaction spell, though.

[Amnestic]

The counterargument I made to this is that there is no need to spam it every minute you're adventuring because there is no reason a skill check will "sneak up" on you, due to how passives work.

Guidance would apply to your passive check.


Here's how to determine a character's total for a passive check:

10 + all modifiers that normally apply to the check

If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive check total as a score.

Guidance is a modifier that would apply to that check (since it applies to all ability checks), so it applies.

Even if you houserule it doesn't apply to passive checks, it does apply to initiative, even in the case you are surprised.

[Segev]

Guidance would apply to your passive check.



Guidance is a modifier that would apply to that check (since it applies to all ability checks), so it applies.

Even if you houserule it doesn't apply to passive checks, it does apply to initiative, even in the case you are surprised.

Ah, fair enough. Even so, you're still applying guidance to only one PC at a time. Even if you're spamming it. And the trade-off for casting a verbal component spell every minute is that you're obviating stealth every minute. Even pseudo-passive stealth. Maybe your DM lets you roll stealth when casting Verbal-component spells to make it harder to hear, in which case, great...but now you're having to pass that without guidance unless the one PC you're buffing is you. And guidance is eating up your Concentration slot.

So, yes, I can see that there are reasons to keep casting it over and over again for certain things. No, I don't actually think it's likely that people will do so for practical reasons. And even if they did, so what? Do you decide to take off safety equipment in hazardous situations just because it's "weird?"

If I my tangent for a moment: the one that actually bugs me for the "unrealistic casting expectations" is phantom steed. As a ritual, it is clearly expected you will use it for day-long travel, but you have to stop every hour for 11 minutes to re-cast it...and that's if only you are riding it. If you're maintaining it for a party of 5, you must spend 55 minutes of every 60 casting to keep 5 of them up at all times. Which means that you'd better be able to cast your ritual while riding one of these steeds, yourself.

Back on topic of guidance and passive checks, it's hardly a passive check if you have to make a decision whether to expend a resource on it, and if you're rolling to determine the bonus, it obviates the point of the passive roll. I think I would rule you can't spend the guidance die on passive checks simply because a passive check is something you're constantly doing. At the very least, you'd have to have guidance re-cast every single round since you'd be expending it immediately, and you'd never be spending it on anything but the one passive check you're using it on. And, if it's something like passive perception, I might give you disadvantage on the check if I was feeling like this was too ridiculous, on the basis that having him constantly chanting in the background is a bit distracting and makes it harder to hear other things going on. Even if I didn't, you now have to roll a d4 for every round.

There are a number of reasons that guidance-spam just doesn't apply to passive checks, most of them surrounding the fact that guidance is used consciously by the target.

So that leaves Initiative, which, sure, that might be worth it. An extra d4 for one PC to initiative could make a big difference. In which case I still have limited problem with it. "Bless Assassin Andy, O Tempus, with swiftness to react to battle!" every minute is probably no more annoying than any number of other constant behaviors you have to maintain in dungeon crawling.

Imagine this "but it's annoying and verisimilitude-breaking" logic being applied to, say, prodding the ground ahead with ten foot poles, or moving with the care necessary to permit stealth, or stopping at every door to listen to the other side and have the rogue check for and disarm traps. Clearly, we should change the rules so that you can reflexively have prodded only trapped squares with the pole, only need to be stealthy when monsters are around to hear you, and only need to check doors for traps if we've already set the traps off, because it's just ridiculous to expect these repetitive behaviors over and over just in case.

[Psyren]

Do you decide to take off equipment in hazardous situations just because it's "weird?"

If your seatbelt or hardhat or goggles functioning required you to chant prayers every 60 seconds to work, then yeah, less people would wear them. Moreover, the designers of such equipment wanting to change them to function differently would be a perfectly reasonable desire.



If I my tangent for a moment: the one that actually bugs me for the "unrealistic casting expectations" is phantom steed. As a ritual, it is clearly expected you will use it for day-long travel, but you have to stop every hour for 11 minutes to re-cast it...and that's if only you are riding it. If you're maintaining it for a party of 5, you must spend 55 minutes of every 60 casting to keep 5 of them up at all times. Which means that you'd better be able to cast your ritual while riding one of these steeds, yourself.

If the entire party needs to mount up, just buy real horses, or hitch a ride with a caravan or something. This isn't 3.5 where Phantom Steed doubles as Mass Overland Flight or Water Walk - it's there to provide a disposable/reusable mount for one person in a pinch or in a combat situation.

[Yakk]

Ah, fair enough. Even so, you're still applying guidance to only one PC at a time. Even if you're spamming it. And the trade-off for casting a verbal component spell every minute is that you're obviating stealth every minute. Even pseudo-passive stealth. Maybe your DM lets you roll stealth when casting Verbal-component spells to make it harder to hear, in which case, great...but now you're having to pass that without guidance unless the one PC you're buffing is you. And guidance is eating up your Concentration slot.

So, yes, I can see that there are reasons to keep casting it over and over again for certain things. No, I don't actually think it's likely that people will do so for practical reasons. And even if they did, so what? Do you decide to take off safety equipment in hazardous situations just because it's "weird?"
The point is that the rules determine what is optimal.

If the optimal thing is sort of bonkers, then change the rules.

In practice, "I add guidance to that", "No, you have to cast guidance before the check" happens thousands of times every week in the real world.

So you get guidance being something that rewards pretty un-fun "I make an agreement with the DM that says I always do it" or "I compulsively say the thing that is optimal, interrupting someone else's play time, to get optimal results".

As opposed to the new one, where someone fails a check and the interjection is "oh maybe he didn't fail", instead of constant with every check "before he does that, I cast guidance", "sorry, bob didn't ask for it, he's already doing the action", ad infinitum.

The game flow is awful, unless you go and say "ok, everyone just add 1d4 to your attribute checks whenever the cleric isn't busy".

[Psyren]

The point is that the rules determine what is optimal.

If the optimal thing is sort of bonkers, then change the rules.

In practice, "I add guidance to that", "No, you have to cast guidance before the check" happens thousands of times every week in the real world.

So you get guidance being something that rewards pretty un-fun "I make an agreement with the DM that says I always do it" or "I compulsively say the thing that is optimal, interrupting someone else's play time, to get optimal results".

As opposed to the new one, where someone fails a check and the interjection is "oh maybe he didn't fail", instead of constant with every check "before he does that, I cast guidance", "sorry, bob didn't ask for it, he's already doing the action", ad infinitum.

The game flow is awful, unless you go and say "ok, everyone just add 1d4 to your attribute checks whenever the cleric isn't busy".

This is indeed the problem they're trying to solve (for the folks upthread who believe current guidance is fine as-is.)

I think most of us are in agreement that 1/LR guidance solves it badly, but at least they're trying.

[Gignere]

This is indeed the problem they're trying to solve (for the folks upthread who believe current guidance is fine as-is.)

I think most of us are in agreement that 1/LR guidance solves it badly, but at least they're trying.

I also think current guidance is overtuned given the 5e paradigm for skills.

Guidance is effectively expertise on every skill the caster has proficiency in and proficiency on every skill that you don’t have proficiency for in the game, until late t2 and t3 then it merely becomes Jack of all trades.

Since WOTC thinks expertise is a strong enough feature for a whole class group they had to retune guidance so a cantrip doesn’t invalidate group defining feature.

[Segev]

If your seatbelt or hardhat or goggles functioning required you to chant prayers every 60 seconds to work, then yeah, less people would wear them. Moreover, the designers of such equipment wanting to change them to function differently would be a perfectly reasonable desire.Sure, but we're now talking about two different layers of reality, here. To take the seatbelts and hardhats analogy, we're talking about changing things so that the laws of physics governing seatbelts and hardhats mean that if you have them in the car or in the factory, they magically teleport to people's heads or magically snap on after an accident happened, if having htem on would make the accident less deadly, and only if they would have made it less deadly.

That's not a design of the seatbelt or the hardhat.

If the argument is, "fewer people would actually do the once-a-minute chanting for guidance just because it's so annoying," well, fine. Fewer people do. People don't behave 100% optimally in the real world. They behave moreso, typically, in games, but they don't always. Game design that means non-optimal behavior is sometimes chosen isn't a problem.

Now, I don't have a problem with the reflexive version of it. I just think the preemptive version has enough value that it shouldn't be lost. If they're worried about spam, the Concentration thing really curtails it, too, because it means the caster can't maintain a long-term concentration buff and have it up.

Proposal
Maybe the optimal design choice would be to give it a Reaction casting time, let it be cast as soon as you see somebody fail, but also have Concentration, up to 1 minute, and allow the target to choose to use it on the check that triggered the reaction or on any later check. By having it still take Concentration, it means you aren't blowing that reaction if you're holding concentration on something else.

Unless that, too, is a problem they're seeking to solve. But I doubt it, not when the current "fix" includes a once-per-day limit.


If the entire party needs to mount up, just buy real horses, or hitch a ride with a caravan or something. This isn't 3.5 where Phantom Steed doubles as Mass Overland Flight or Water Walk - it's there to provide a disposable/reusable mount for one person in a pinch or in a combat situation.An "emergency horse" that is faster than a regular one and far more vulnerable in combat is a really awkward fit in a party with actual horses.

The spell really should have an 8 hour duration. I would also love to see it get upcasts to restore the higher-CL benefits, but the 8 hour duration would at least make it functional rather than a trap.


In practice, "I add guidance to that", "No, you have to cast guidance before the check" happens thousands of times every week in the real world.It does? Not in games I've played, in general. Almost all things it would be added to are things that it makes sense to let the cleric have a moment granting the guidance before doing. I know there're those pesky passive perception checks and initiative checks, but I think the "optimality" of it at that point is a risk/reward thing. And it's not like the new version works on either of them: you don't get to know that somebody failed a passive perception check, so you don't know to use it; you can't "fail" an initiative roll, so you can't add it anyway.

And if they make initiative not an ability check but rather its own thing (no idea if they will or not, but it wouldn't shock me given some other things they've done), no version of guidance would apply, anyway.


So you get guidance being something that rewards pretty un-fun "I make an agreement with the DM that says I always do it" or "I compulsively say the thing that is optimal, interrupting someone else's play time, to get optimal results".Why is that "un-fun?" Especially the first version?


As opposed to the new one, where someone fails a check and the interjection is "oh maybe he didn't fail", instead of constant with every check "before he does that, I cast guidance", "sorry, bob didn't ask for it, he's already doing the action", ad infinitum.It's the same interjection. Only now, you're going to have it be, "Oh, maybe he didn't fail! I cast guidance--" "Wait, didn't yo ualready cast it on him once today?" "No, that was Steve." "You cast it on Steve, too, but you cast it on Bob with that passive perception check with the goblin thief, remember?" Only now, the interjections are truly wastes of time because the net result is the un-fun "you can't use your support feature that you remembered you had but forgot you'd used in the very specific way it's limited by."


The game flow is awful, unless you go and say "ok, everyone just add 1d4 to your attribute checks whenever the cleric isn't busy".It's a perfectly fine game flow. No worse than "Wait, I will help him not fail" "No, you used it on him already" etc.

It is also little better than, "Well, maybe he didn't fail; I cast it!" after ever yfailed roll, if that stupid once-per-day limit is removed. "You may as well say you roll an extra 1d4 on every check whenever the cleric isn't busy," still is a way to look at it.

Honestly, the arguments supporting the new version as better than the old version (rather than about as good, assuming they remove the one-per-day limit) sound to me like arguments for removing guidance from the game entirely. Which, to be fair, the new version with that one-per-day limit effectively does, since only those who fall for trap options will ever take it.


This is indeed the problem they're trying to solve (for the folks upthread who believe current guidance is fine as-is.)

I think most of us are in agreement that 1/LR guidance solves it badly, but at least they're trying.I don't agree that it's a problem. But if it is, the solution is either to make it a first level spell (and buff it somehow to make it worth the slot), or to remove it from the game entirely, rather than trying to salvage something that they view as overpowered.

[Psyren]

Sure, but we're now talking about two different layers of reality, here. To take the seatbelts and hardhats analogy, we're talking about changing things so that the laws of physics governing seatbelts and hardhats mean that if you have them in the car or in the factory, they magically teleport to people's heads or magically snap on after an accident happened, if having htem on would make the accident less deadly, and only if they would have made it less deadly.

That's not a design of the seatbelt or the hardhat.

Sure it is :smallconfused: That's exactly their design. And why not? It's magic, the effect doesn't have to make sense or be easily explainable.


If the argument is, "fewer people would actually do the once-a-minute chanting for guidance just because it's so annoying," well, fine. Fewer people do. People don't behave 100% optimally in the real world. They behave moreso, typically, in games, but they don't always. Game design that means non-optimal behavior is sometimes chosen isn't a problem.

The point we're making is that whether the actions taken to bring something about in the world feel annoying or odd aren't related to how optimal they are. (Indeed, being optimal - which current Guidance is - makes it worse!)


Now, I don't have a problem with the reflexive version of it. I just think the preemptive version has enough value that it shouldn't be lost. If they're worried about spam, the Concentration thing really curtails it, too, because it means the caster can't maintain a long-term concentration buff and have it up.

Proposal
Maybe the optimal design choice would be to give it a Reaction casting time, let it be cast as soon as you see somebody fail, but also have Concentration, up to 1 minute, and allow the target to choose to use it on the check that triggered the reaction or on any later check. By having it still take Concentration, it means you aren't blowing that reaction if you're holding concentration on something else.


I can all-but guarantee you a ton of groups forget that Guidance interferes with concentration, especially if they've gotten used to reflexively saying "I guidance!" for every ability check. Which, incidentally, is the problem with your Proposal - it doesn't solve that disconnect between how the spell is written and how people are conditioned to use it in play.

I'm fine with it not being limited by concentration anymore, I just think 1/LR is too restrictive and infinite use with no drawback is too open. There's a happier medium in there somewhere.



An "emergency horse" that is faster than a regular one and far more vulnerable in combat is a really awkward fit in a party with actual horses.

The spell really should have an 8 hour duration. I would also love to see it get upcasts to restore the higher-CL benefits, but the 8 hour duration would at least make it functional rather than a trap.

It's not that awkward, considering how highly valued the spell is. I certainly wouldn't mind it being changed to let you mount up the whole party with one casting or something though.



I don't agree that it's a problem. But if it is, the solution is either to make it a first level spell (and buff it somehow to make it worth the slot), or to remove it from the game entirely, rather than trying to salvage something that they view as overpowered.

Noted. I disagree that these are the only two remaining options.

[Segev]

I can all-but guarantee you a ton of groups forget that Guidance interferes with concentration, especially if they've gotten used to reflexively saying "I guidance!" for every ability check. Which, incidentally, is the problem with your Proposal - it doesn't solve that disconnect between how the spell is written and how people are conditioned to use it in play.

I'm fine with it not being limited by concentration anymore, I just think 1/LR is too restrictive and infinite use with no drawback is too open. There's a happier medium in there somewhere.Fair enough; it DOES seem likely that people forget about the Concentration requirement. In my experience, Concentration gets forgotten a LOT, often totally innocently, as people forget which buffs require it and which do not.

I'm eager to work towards that happy medium; I just don't want to give up the pre-cast version, because it's far, far too valuable. I do not mind the reaction-cast version. (I do think the arguments that say the latter is so much less awkward than the former are nonsense, because the interjections will happen, period, as long as the spell exists, but I don't think I've seen you make those arguments.)


It's not that awkward, considering how highly valued the spell is. I certainly wouldn't mind it being changed to let you mount up the whole party with one casting or something though.[/qoute]The same argument could be made about the claims of "once per minute casting guidance." I think it is actually way more awkward than casting guidance once per minute, in fact, since you're trying to continually cast a spell for most of an hour and having people mount and dismount every 11 minutes as one of them changes steeds. Imagine THAT montage being shown for travel rather than just the party galloping on phantom steeds through the various environments. It reads like a comedy sketch. I can see Carbot Animations doing it; I can't see it being shown in a D&D-wants-to-be-taken-seriously movie.

I'll go so far as to agree that it seems likely that "I cast guidance once a minute on Bob," will wind up being forgotten a number of times, and it will basically always come back to casting it when he's about to do something, when he goes off to scout, or when the party KNOWs a fight is imminent. And that assumes Cleric Carl doesn't have a better use for his Concentration.

But anyway, that's not a "happy medium."

[QUOTE=Psyren;25609192]Noted. I disagree that these are the only two remaining options.I agree they're not the only options, but it is a cleaner solution than what has already been proposed, and the 5.0 version is not so big a problem that I think it easy to tweak to solve the problems they perceive. Especially not knowing for sure what it is they see as a problem.

Certainly, if the once-per-day restriction is an indication that they feel it's being cast too often and benefitting too many ability checks, then that problem cannot be solved while leaving guidance as a cantrip. The whole point of cantrips is spammability. Either +1d4 to pretty much all ability checks, with limits based on opportunity-cost factors such as (but not necessarily limited to or having to include) concentration, awkwardness of casting "on time," restriction of reactions to 1/round, or the like... either that's fine and dandy as a bonus to a large swath of ability checks, or it needs to be restricted to a few ability checks per day. If the latter, it shouldn't be a cantrip.

[Amnestic]

If the latter, it shouldn't be a cantrip.

This was my view, and I couldn't find an elegant cantrip solution that satisfied a) giving ability boosts while b) being 'infinite use') and c) fixing the problem I have with it's awkwardness, so I baked it into Bless (and buffed Bane accordingly). On its own, its not worth a 1st level slot, but making bless a blanket +1d4 to all d20 rolls (and Bane the reverse) felt like a good way to still get it.

This also give Bless the occasional out of combat use, if you're all going to be attempting an ability check (climbing a wall, stealthing, etc.) to boost up 3+ people's rolls.

Does it make Bless too good? It was already good and this makes it better, but as your combat concentration gets taken by better stuff as you gain levels it probably transitions to more of a utility spell, so I think it's 'fine'. It also makes Bane a bit better to help out your grapple guys I suppose.

[Psyren]

I'm eager to work towards that happy medium; I just don't want to give up the pre-cast version, because it's far, far too valuable.

Putting aside that your table strictly speaking doesn't have to give up anything, I'm with Yakk on the downsides to the current version so I'll hold off until they respond.


The same argument could be made about the claims of "once per minute casting guidance." I think it is actually way more awkward than casting guidance once per minute, in fact, since you're trying to continually cast a spell for most of an hour and having people mount and dismount every 11 minutes as one of them changes steeds. Imagine THAT montage being shown for travel rather than just the party galloping on phantom steeds through the various environments. It reads like a comedy sketch. I can see Carbot Animations doing it; I can't see it being shown in a D&D-wants-to-be-taken-seriously movie.

I'll go so far as to agree that it seems likely that "I cast guidance once a minute on Bob," will wind up being forgotten a number of times, and it will basically always come back to casting it when he's about to do something, when he goes off to scout, or when the party KNOWs a fight is imminent. And that assumes Cleric Carl doesn't have a better use for his Concentration.

But anyway, that's not a "happy medium."

The difference is that phantom steed is rarely used that way. How many times does the whole party need to spend an entire day (or days) traveling somewhere, and Phantom Steed is their only option that's faster than walking? I'd posit, not often. After all, what would the DM have done if nobody had that spell?

In fact, it might be even more optimal in that case to not have it at all, so the DM is forced to spawn a caravan or horse-hitch (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0140.html) or something else nearby just for the sake of narrative pacing. Neither version of Guidance is comparable to that.



I agree they're not the only options, but it is a cleaner solution than what has already been proposed, and the 5.0 version is not so big a problem that I think it easy to tweak to solve the problems they perceive. Especially not knowing for sure what it is they see as a problem.

Certainly, if the once-per-day restriction is an indication that they feel it's being cast too often and benefitting too many ability checks, then that problem cannot be solved while leaving guidance as a cantrip. The whole point of cantrips is spammability. Either +1d4 to pretty much all ability checks, with limits based on opportunity-cost factors such as (but not necessarily limited to or having to include) concentration, awkwardness of casting "on time," restriction of reactions to 1/round, or the like... either that's fine and dandy as a bonus to a large swath of ability checks, or it needs to be restricted to a few ability checks per day. If the latter, it shouldn't be a cantrip.

"Delete it entirely" is certainly clean, but... no.

I can't think what they'd do to it to make it worth a leveled slot. Upcast scaling? That would break the skill system over its knee with a sickening crack.

[Segev]

The difference is that phantom steed is rarely used that way. How many times does the whole party need to spend an entire day (or days) traveling somewhere, and Phantom Steed is their only option that's faster than walking? I'd posit, not often. After all, what would the DM have done if nobody had that spell? Honestly? I have trouble thinking of a use case for the spell. It's too fragile for combat, which is where one PC having it would make a difference. It's too out-of-pace with the rest of the party if it's to let one person travel with a more conventionally-mounted party overland (it's way faster while it's up, but you have to plan for downtime to recast it or at least switch mounts, unless you're awkwardly casting while riding...which you can do, but is narratively awkward...so either you slow it to the rest of the party's pace, making its speed pointless, or you gallop ahead and then wait for them to catch up while you recast).

I can't think when you should use it. And I really, really want to like the spell.


"Delete it entirely" is certainly clean, but... no.I, too, don't want it to be removed. I just think that it's fine as-is.


I can't think what they'd do to it to make it worth a leveled slot. Upcast scaling? That would break the skill system over its knee with a sickening crack.Maybe if you either chose a specific skill to which it applied, and it applied to all uses of it during the duration? Or even a specific Ability? Or to every Ability check?

[Psyren]

Honestly? I have trouble thinking of a use case for the spell. It's too fragile for combat, which is where one PC having it would make a difference.
...
I can't think when you should use it. And I really, really want to like the spell.

It's actually very easy to use in combat. Even if it takes any damage, it takes 10 rounds to "die," and you can keep riding it that entire time. Most combats will be over long before then.


Maybe if you either chose a specific skill to which it applied, and it applied to all uses of it during the duration? Or even a specific Ability? Or to every Ability check?

"Boost all uses of X specific skill for an hour" is basically Borrowed Knowledge, except better because it stacks if you're already proficient.

[Yakk]

It can be used to send an NPC messanger somewhere, or an NPC to safety.

You can use it to pull a cart. It is much faster than a horse, so the cart will be as well!

You can burn spell slots and get the entire party moving quickly.

If one player is behind on speed, you can boost 1 or 2 PCs up to the speed of the rest of the party.

You can use it for scouting.

[Segev]

It's actually very easy to use in combat. Even if it takes any damage, it takes 10 rounds to "die," and you can keep riding it that entire time. Most combats will be over long before then.There was a long thread on this, and I thought I had discovered this exploit. However, several things work against it: first of all, the spell ends, and thus you can't ride the horse anymore, as it only lets you do so for the duration. The horse just sticks around for a minute to let you dismount. Nothing says it will let you ride it.

Even if you can convince the DM that it will let you continue to ride it, it also has the stats of a riding horse. While that 1 hp threshold to end the spell is particularly nasty, the horse ALSO only has a Riding Horse's 13 hp, so if it takes 13 damage, it dies, and you're flung off even though it takes it a minute to fade away.

Now, if the DM agrees that the spell actually runs the way you (and once, I) thought it did, then yes, it's actually a VERY good combat spell.


"Boost all uses of X specific skill for an hour" is basically Borrowed Knowledge, except better because it stacks if you're already proficient.Drat. :smallyuk: You're quite right. Though to be fair, "1 minute" is not "1 hour," but still....

[Yakk]

It's actually very easy to use in combat. Even if it takes any damage, it takes 10 rounds to "die," and you can keep riding it that entire time. Most combats will be over long before then.
No, it dies when reduced to 0 HP.

It has the stats of a horse, and the horse is dead. The spell may persist, but you can't ride a dead horse -- no more than you can ride a prone horse or an incapacitated horse.

[Psyren]

There was a long thread on this, and I thought I had discovered this exploit. However, several things work against it: first of all, the spell ends, and thus you can't ride the horse anymore, as it only lets you do so for the duration.

I view the "when the spell ends..." clause as overriding the typical effect of a spell ending. YMMV.


No, it dies when reduced to 0 HP.

It has the stats of a horse, and the horse is dead. The spell may persist, but you can't ride a dead horse -- no more than you can ride a prone horse or an incapacitated horse.

It says it "gradually fades if it takes any damage." Nothing there about dying.

[KorvinStarmast]

The point is that the rules determine what is optimal.

If the optimal thing is sort of bonkers, then change the rules.

In practice, "I add guidance to that", "No, you have to cast guidance before the check" happens thousands of times every week in the real world. That's a people problem, and in this case the player is at fault, and for that matter the team is at fault, for not playing as a team.

So you get guidance being something that rewards pretty un-fun "I make an agreement with the DM that says I always do it" or No, you don't. That's a player/people problem again.

The game flow is awful, unless you go and say "ok, everyone just add 1d4 to your attribute checks whenever the cleric isn't busy". At our tables, if the player does the check wihtout asking for guidance, or the cleric isn't paying attention, we play on. Teamwork is rewarded as is smart play. I even had one DM ask me to say my little prayer ~ May the stars bring you success ~ is what we settled on right before someone got guidance from me. A few of the failed checks got the attempting player to remark "Your stars aren't so lucky today" ... fancy that, we were role playing rather than getting wrapped around the axel over mechanics.

This is indeed the problem they're trying to solve (for the folks upthread who believe current guidance is fine as-is.) It isn't a problem with guidance.

I also think current guidance is overtuned given the 5e paradigm for skills.
Not every party has a cleric. Not ever cleric picks guidance. There are 12 classes, and usually 4 or 5 people in each party. (The base game seems to be balanced for a 4 person party).

Fair enough; it DOES seem likely that people forget about the Concentration requirement. In my experience, Concentration gets forgotten a LOT, often totally innocently, as people forget which buffs require it and which do not. Right. Back to the people problem. RTFM and all that.

Some of you are getting wrapped around the axel about a cantrip. In real life, that's the kind of thing that gets described as "trying to pick the fly poop out of the pepper"

[Psyren]

Nearly all problems that arise in man-made systems are "people problems" :smallconfused: That doesn't mean altered design can't be used to mitigate or even solve such problems. The solution just has to be cost-effective, and tweaking a cantrip definitely qualifies. They overcorrected in this UA but they're on the right track imo.

[Amnestic]

It says it "gradually fades if it takes any damage." Nothing there about dying.

These two clauses:



For the Duration, you or a creature you choose can ride the steed. [...] The spell ends if you use an Action to dismiss it or if the steed takes any damage.


The creature took damage, ending the spell. As such the duration of the spell has ended and therefore no one can ride it anymore. It does, however, have a specific exception that once the spell ends it lingers for a minute to let you dismount, but you can't ride it - since the spell has ended.

[Psyren]

These two clauses:



The creature took damage, ending the spell. As such the duration of the spell has ended and therefore no one can ride it anymore. It does, however, have a specific exception that once the spell ends it lingers for a minute to let you dismount, but you can't ride it - since the spell has ended.

Sure, I'm not at all expecting every table or DM to rule on it the way mine has. Hence the YMMV.

Even if you do rule it becomes a stationary high-chair the minute it gets hit, you can still keep it from being hit in fights where the enemy can't reach it. 100ft is plenty of movement to get in and out of cover between shots.

[Yakk]

If one person stumbles on a step, it is that person being clumsy.

If 1000 people stumble on a step, that step needs work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seieuz__B_g

Obviously a stair-climbing skill problem right?

And yes, this won't make people who have a strong "belief in a just world" change their mind. I'm just explaining the difference between systemic and individual problems, so you are aware of the difference. You might not agree that this (or anything) is a systemic problem whenever it isn't a universal unavoidable issue, but I can't help that.

[KorvinStarmast]

If one person stumbles on a step, it is that person being clumsy.
If 1000 people stumble on a step, that step needs work. I am sure that you have seen the demotivational poster, or meme, that goes something like this.

None of us is quite as stupid/foolish/wrong as all of us.

This reminds me of a poster / t-shirt that was humorous and common about 40 years ago:
Eat feces; 500 billion flies can't all be wrong
(A different word than feces was used)

As Psyren noted, concentration is often forgotten, but that does not mean that concentration is a bad thing in this game (it isn't): it is a good enough mechanic that requires a spell caster to make a choice, provides for failure to be an option, and so on.

People can certainly not apply what's right there in the manual.

So let's go back to the three steps, in the manual, of how to play the game:

DM describes situation
Players describe what they do (or what they attempt)
{roll dice to resolve uncertain outcomes}
DM narrates the result
(This basic play loop continues until the session ends)

if the players do not describe what they are doing, to include "I cast guidance on {so and so} a they try to pick that lock" then that die roll never happens.

The objections you raised in that previous post do not fit the "how to play" thing that's right there in the manual.

[MisterD]

I am not nervous yet. We have yet to see the arcane UA or the Magic UA.

[Segev]

Nearly all problems that arise in man-made systems are "people problems" :smallconfused: That doesn't mean altered design can't be used to mitigate or even solve such problems. The solution just has to be cost-effective, and tweaking a cantrip definitely qualifies. They overcorrected in this UA but they're on the right track imo.

I just think that it's not a problem as-is in the rules. Even if players often run it wrong, I don't think it's that big of a deal. It's nice. It's a great cantrip. It isn't overpowered, and if your party has put together enough bounded-accuracy-breaking resources to, well, break bounded accuracy, so be it. Ability checks are a big part of the game, but they're not the be-all and end-all, and as has been noted repeatedly, if the DM is doing it right, they only come up with success is actually a possibly interesting and reasonably possible result, anyway. So what if the party is really good at them?

It's probably not the d4 on one or two PCs' checks most of the time that's breaking it, even if it contributes.

I won't never take the spell again if it's a reaction. It's better as a reaction in a lot of cases, especially since you can use it without breaking concentration on something else, then. I will miss the ability to have the cleric bless the rogue before he goes scouting, or to bless somebody before he does a performance or a persuasion effort or somesuch, though, because I know the same "but you can't buff him; the spell will make it too obvious!" complaints will come up. "You can't use guidance on stealth! You're speaking in a firm, clear voice, which automatically breaks it!" will be the new problem, and people using it for stealth or for persuasion or for anything where noticing a spell being cast is potentially an issue will be said to be playing the game wrong.

It mainly will help rogues disarming traps, I think. You'll still never see it used on passive perception (you never know it's been called upon, so you don't see somebody fail the check, thus can't react to the failure). You'll never see it used on active perception except in a weirdly gamist way (which already pushes us back into the same problem as casting it every minute...except now instead of an in-world motivation for a tediously repetitive action, we have a game-based motivation for weirdly randomly saying "may your sight be blessed" to the Inquisitive Rogue when he pauses for half a second to glance around. I guess he has to be assumed to always be calling out, "SEARCHING FOR SOMETHING HIDING!" so the cleric knows to do it...and the cleric somehow knows he's failed, so the rogue must've started to say, "I don't see any--" before the cleric interjects with, "May your sight be blessed!" and the rogue either says, "--thing; still don't, sorry, Cleric Bob," or "--never mind, there's the goblin! Thanks, Cleric Bob!"

It's not that it's a bad spell as a reaction, but I just think it works better as a pre-cast buff and the decision to use it is in the target's hands.

And, I am pretty sure we all agree, the one-per-day thing is a deal-breaker, no matter what.

[KorvinStarmast]

I won't never take the spell again if it's a reaction. The problem with it being a reaction is that it's meta and bound to a die roll, just as Cutting Words is meta in that you have to first consult the dice after they are rolled.
Bardic Inspiration (now, not later) and Guidance now, not later, isn't meta. It's a pre load that adds to a die roll before the action is taken and adjudicated.

There are quite a few meta abilities (like Portent) that are meta like that, and I'd not mind seeing a lot of them going away except for this: reactions are a good thing in the Action economy, and one needs a variety of tools available to make use of them.


And, I am pretty sure we all agree, the one-per-day thing is a deal-breaker, no matter what. It's just wrong.

[Psyren]

I guess he has to be assumed to always be calling out, "SEARCHING FOR SOMETHING HIDING!" so the cleric knows to do it...and the cleric somehow knows he's failed, so the rogue must've started to say, "I don't see any--" before the cleric interjects with, "May your sight be blessed!" and the rogue either says, "--thing; still don't, sorry, Cleric Bob," or "--never mind, there's the goblin! Thanks, Cleric Bob!"


The problem with it being a reaction is that it's meta and bound to a die roll, just as Cutting Words is meta in that you have to first consult the dice after they are rolled.
Bardic Inspiration (now, not later) and Guidance now, not later, isn't meta. It's a pre load that adds to a die roll before the action is taken and adjudicated.

There are quite a few meta abilities (like Portent) that are meta like that, and I'd not mind seeing a lot of them going away except for this: reactions are a good thing in the Action economy, and one needs a variety of tools available to make use of them.

There are "after-roll" abilities all over the place; Psi-Empowered Knack, Combat Inspiration, Cloud Rune, Bend Luck, Fanatical Focus, Glibness etc. They're not fluffed as the character, in-universe going "whoops, bad result, let me add/change this roll"; They're fluffed as the original unmodified roll never having happened in the first place. In the case of Guidance - the cleric seeing the failure is, in-universe, the cleric seeing the attempt and magically realizing it's about to fail, with enough time to intervene, much like a caster can realize someone is about to cast something and intervening there.


And, I am pretty sure we all agree, the one-per-day thing is a deal-breaker, no matter what.

Yes, we agree there. I'd still take it even if it was 1/day/person, but I definitely want it usable more frequently.

[Segev]

The problem with it being a reaction is that it's meta and bound to a die roll, just as Cutting Words is meta in that you have to first consult the dice after they are rolled.
Bardic Inspiration (now, not later) and Guidance now, not later, isn't meta. It's a pre load that adds to a die roll before the action is taken and adjudicated.

There are quite a few meta abilities (like Portent) that are meta like that, and I'd not mind seeing a lot of them going away except for this: reactions are a good thing in the Action economy, and one needs a variety of tools available to make use of them. As Psyren says in the quote below, there are a number of after-roll abilities. However, most of those don't involve non-visible actions they're bolstering. Guidance theoretically can, but I guarantee you that making it a reaction to somebody failing a check will cause there to be strenuous arguments that, if you don't "see" somebody fail a roll (i.e. have no way of knowing they're about to flub), you can't react to it, so you can't cast it. Perception will never get it. And, even if it did, does perceiving the obvious count as "succeeding?" What about the guy who hid with DC 15 but not the guy who hid with a DC of 17?


There are "after-roll" abilities all over the place; Psi-Empowered Knack, Combat Inspiration, Cloud Rune, Bend Luck, Fanatical Focus, Glibness etc. They're not fluffed as the character, in-universe going "whoops, bad result, let me add/change this roll"; They're fluffed as the original unmodified roll never having happened in the first place. In the case of Guidance - the cleric seeing the failure is, in-universe, the cleric seeing the attempt and magically realizing it's about to fail, with enough time to intervene, much like a caster can realize someone is about to cast something and intervening there.Except there's nothing to indicate he "magically" knows anything. The spell isn't even cast yet, and makes no mention of magical foreknowledge.

Now, I agree, that's how it SHOULD be run, with full metagame behavior on the table. The spell is clearly meant for that. (A number of things are much more game-y and metagame-dependent in 5.1, so far, with less care given to integrating the mechanics with the narrative, which...dampens my enthusiasm, to say the least.)


Yes, we agree there. I'd still take it even if it was 1/day/person, but I definitely want it usable more frequently.Fair enough. I wouldn't, but despite my best efforts, I am actually pretty bad at truly optimal play.

[KorvinStarmast]

As Psyren says in the quote below, there are a number of after-roll abilities. As did I. I don't like how they feel, even though I got a hell of a lot of use out of Cutting Words.

[KorvinStarmast]

As Psyren says in the quote below, there are a number of after-roll abilities. As did I. I don't like how they feel, even though I got a lot of use out of Cutting Words.

[Psyren]

Except there's nothing to indicate he "magically" knows anything. The spell isn't even cast yet, and makes no mention of magical foreknowledge.

None of the other abilities I listed mention that either, but they still function. That's just how reactions in this game work, they occur with the timing they say they do.

It's not "metagaming" to use abilities as they are presented and intended.

[Segev]

None of the other abilities I listed mention that either, but they still function. That's just how reactions in this game work, they occur with the timing they say they do.

It's not "metagaming" to use abilities as they are presented and intended.

It is; it's just not cheating.

There's nothing inherently wrong with metagaming, either. I just know that we'll have endless arguments over whether you can react to a skill failure you don't even know has been attempted, let alone failed. Do you know if somebody just failed to notice an invisible goblin hiding in the middle of the room? Or if there's just nothing there to spot?

As you'll note, I have no issue with the cleric reacting to the barbarian failing a Wisdom save by casting a modified-to-be-reaction-cast-time resistance. Usability trumps verisimilitude a lot of the time, and the verisimilitude break is moderate here, for me. I could handle guidance being a reaction, too. I just prefer guidance as-is. I do not think there is a problem that needs fixing, here, and I think the "fix" makes things slightly worse. (And that's assuming they ditch the one-per-day thing.)

[Psyren]

I just know that we'll have endless arguments over whether you can react to a skill failure you don't even know has been attempted, let alone failed.

Just so you know, "there's a chance some tables will argue about this, therefore it shouldn't exist" will never be convincing to me. Especially when the game already has a perfectly functional method of resolving such disputes, i.e. Sage Advice. "Can guidance be activated on a passive or secret check?" I'm confident in saying the answer would be no, and - so long as it's usable more often than 1/day/person - it would still be useful.

[Segev]

Just so you know, "there's a chance some tables will argue about this, therefore it shouldn't exist" will never be convincing to me. Especially when the game already has a perfectly functional method of resolving such disputes, i.e. Sage Advice. "Can guidance be activated on a passive or secret check?" I'm confident in saying the answer would be no, and - so long as it's usable more often than 1/day/person - it would still be useful.

Oh, I'm not talking about "some tables." I'm talking about this forum. And I fear this forum IS representative of a large swath of gamerdom that plays D&D. Not everyone, and maybe not a vast majority, but certainly is typical of a plurality.

And, again, passive or secret checks aren't what I was talking about people arguing over. "I listen and smell for that goblin I'm pretty sure turned invisible on its last turn," says the Inquisitor Rogue's player. Does the cleric know whether the roll succeeded or failed, or even that it was made? Can he spend a reaction to help with it? Mechanically, I'd say that a reaction-cast guidance absolutely should be allowed (it's not like it should cost anything but the reaction, so it doesn't even matter whether the "no goblin" result is because the goblin isn't there, or the roll wouldn't have succeeded even with the extra d4). But I foresee people arguing - just as they argue over whether you should be casting (or be allowed to cast) guidance every minute on the minute now, in this very thread - over whether the cleric is allowed/able to make that reaction when he doesn't even have reason to know a check's been made at all, IC.

Even with that, I don't mind a reaction-based guidance. I just think what we have now is superior, and that the "problem" this is meant to "fix" is not really a problem at all. I think this is making things slightly worse for no actual benefit to the game.

[Psyren]

And I fear this forum IS representative of a large swath of gamerdom that plays D&D.

I have no such fear :smallbiggrin:


And, again, passive or secret checks aren't what I was talking about people arguing over. "I listen and smell for that goblin I'm pretty sure turned invisible on its last turn," says the Inquisitor Rogue's player. Does the cleric know whether the roll succeeded or failed, or even that it was made? Can he spend a reaction to help with it?

1) You're saying it's impossible for someone to know that someone else they can see is using the Search action? Especially if they're "smelling?" Because I don't think that's the case at all.

2) Are you saying it's also impossible for them to tell that the rogue searched and didn't (or appears to be about not to) find anything? I disagree with that too.

[Segev]

1) You're saying it's impossible for someone to know that someone else they can see is using the Search action? Especially if they're "smelling?" Because I don't think that's the case at all.

2) Are you saying it's also impossible for them to tell that the rogue searched and didn't (or appears to be about not to) find anything? I disagree with that too.

I'm saying that that argument will be made. Frequently, loudly, and post nauseum. I did not say I agreed with it.

[Psyren]

I'm saying that that argument will be made. Frequently, loudly, and post nauseum. I did not say I agreed with it.

Which brings us back to "there's a chance some tables this forum will argue about it, therefore it shouldn't exist." Even if that ends up being true, I suggest joining some other forums too, they make for a decent palate cleanser if nothing else.

[Segev]

Which brings us back to "there's a chance some tables this forum will argue about it, therefore it shouldn't exist." Even if that ends up being true, I suggest joining some other forums too, they make for a decent palate cleanser if nothing else.

It also removes existing utility, and the only real utility it adds is for players who forget they have abilities until it's just a smidgen too late but who have DMs that are sticklers about it, or for those who want to use guidance while concentrating on something else long-term.

I do not personally see the gameplay loop of, "I roll skill," "Oh! I cast guidance!" as being a problem even with guidance as currently written. It is perfectly possible in most of those cases that the actual in-setting/narrative course of events was the realization that XYZ was about to be done by PC Bob, and so the cleric asked him to wait the six seconds it takes to say a quick prayer to give divine guidance. Because part of what causes it to look like "oops, he's misusing it as a reaction!" is that rolling happens faster than the actual tasks would.

The change to a reaction casting time and an instantaneous duration is only a minor reduction in utility.

I, personally, don't see the problems you do with the existing spell, if you support this change as a fix to a problem. So, I can turn around your own dismissive argument. "Some tables may already sort-of use guidance as if it were a reaction spell," is not a reason why it needs to be changed such that all tables are compelled to do so or house rule. Why is some tables' house rule inherently superior to other tables' following the RAW?

[Psyren]

I do not personally see the gameplay loop of, "I roll skill," "Oh! I cast guidance!" as being a problem even with guidance as currently written.
...
I, personally, don't see the problems you do with the existing spell, if you support this change as a fix to a problem.

Segev, I'm genuinely happy for you if you haven't seen this cantrip's current design as a problem at your tables. Truly. And that goes for others like Korvin as well.

All I, AdAstra, Amnestic, Yakk and others are saying is that we have, or at the very least understand where the desire to change it is coming from.

[Segev]

Segev, I'm genuinely happy for you if you haven't seen this cantrip's current design as a problem at your tables. Truly. And that goes for others like Korvin as well.

All I, AdAstra, Amnestic, Yakk and others are saying is that we have, or at the very least understand where the desire to change it is coming from.

You've been dismissive of my pointing out when I've had problems, stating that the game is fine because you do not have any problems. I am therefore a bit frustrated that you feel that, because you have had problems, the game actually should be changed in a way I find detrimental to it.

In an effort to clear my mind of any preconceptions I may have about it - and I apologize, but whatever has been said on it before almost certainly has that clutter in my head associated - I will ask this, because being dismissive of problems is actually not something I want to do: what actually are the problems you've seen that make you sympathetic to this? And why are they problems? (I find that often one person's "problem" is just fine to another, and outlining WHY it's a problem can help avoid dismissiveness.)

[Psyren]

You've been dismissive of my pointing out when I've had problems, stating that the game is fine because you do not have any problems. I am therefore a bit frustrated that you feel that, because you have had problems, the game actually should be changed in a way I find detrimental to it.

You seem to be implying WotC is proposing this change because of my problems :smallconfused: I promise you I haven't been writing them any letters; if they're doing this because of anyone, it's because of other tables that are articulating these issues, not my own.



In an effort to clear my mind of any preconceptions I may have about it - and I apologize, but whatever has been said on it before almost certainly has that clutter in my head associated - I will ask this, because being dismissive of problems is actually not something I want to do: what actually are the problems you've seen that make you sympathetic to this? And why are they problems? (I find that often one person's "problem" is just fine to another, and outlining WHY it's a problem can help avoid dismissiveness.)

I pointed to Yakk's post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?650389-Anybody-else-nervous-that-they-aren-t-showing-us-updated-spells-for-D-amp-D1&p=25608981&viewfull=1#post25608981) earlier and you replied to it that you don't see it as a problem, so I'm not sure what more you want me to add.

[Segev]

You seem to be implying WotC is proposing this change because of my problems :smallconfused: I promise you I haven't been writing them any letters; if they're doing this because of anyone, it's because of other tables that are articulating these issues, not my own.Whether it is WotC making the change or not, criticism of the change is equally (in)valid. You have reacted as if it would ruin the game to, for example, provide even a small list of examples of what kinds of tasks the game expects to be "hard," or a discussion section in the DMG on setting difficulty of tasks based on genre, because to you, it has never been a problem in the game. This is despite the fact that no amount of text in the books would force you to change how you set your DCs in your games.

It therefore comes across as very much an attitude of, "it's only a problem if it's a problem in my [Psyren's] games," when you turn around and tell me that it's fine for WotC to be contemplating this change as a rebuttal to my position that the rules for guidance are fine in 5.0, and that this proposed change makes guidance worse without making it any better.


I pointed to Yakk's post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?650389-Anybody-else-nervous-that-they-aren-t-showing-us-updated-spells-for-D-amp-D1&p=25608981&viewfull=1#post25608981) earlier and you replied to it that you don't see it as a problem, so I'm not sure what more you want me to add.Ah. ...I think my argument against that position is that this won't change that. You're going to have the same gameplay loop, and the same amount of obnoxious interjection, but now you're going to have argument over whether you even CAN KNOW to use guidance.

You dismissed this concern as "I don't care what some tables may argue about," which is again seeming to go back to "It's only a problem if it's a problem for me, and if it's a problem at other tables, they're doing it wrong."

Either tables doing it wrong is a problem that should be addressed, or it isn't. If it's only a problem that should be addressed if it's a problem at your table, and it being a problem at other tables isn't a reason to influence the rules, then...

Well, hopefully you can see why I find your arguments to be less than persuasive.



The rules change will, at best, only shift which tables are having the problem. For you, you believe your table will be one that has a problem shifted away from it. You don't get to say, "Well, you can always use the 5.0 rules; they're not going anywhere," as a reason not to object to the change when tables may well suffer from the shift, any more than I get to tell you, "Well, you can house rule guidance to be a reaction spell with instantaneous duration; there's no need for WotC to make this change and they shouldn't."

And, if you agree we both get to tell each other that, then that's my argument: WotC should not make this change because it causes at least as many problems as it fixes, and possibly (I believe that possibility is realized) makes the gameplay involving the spell a net worse experience. You are free to house rule guidance to be a reaction spell in your games; we don't need WotC to canonize the change and force people to use old edition rules in order to have a superior gameplay experience.

[KorvinStarmast]

Even with that, I don't mind a reaction-based guidance. I just think what we have now is superior, and that the "problem" this is meant to "fix" is not really a problem at all. I think this is making things slightly worse for no actual benefit to the game. That's more or less my position.

It also removes existing utility It does. It fiddles with something that works well.

and the only real utility it adds is for players who forget they have abilities until it's just a smidgen too late As I said, this is a people problem, not a problem with the spell.

but who have DMs that are sticklers about it, or for those who want to use guidance while concentrating on something else long-term. For them, the simple answer is "no, concentration forces the spell caster to make a choice, so, make one."

[Segev]

That's more or less my position.
It does. It fiddles with something that works well.
As I said, this is a people problem, not a problem with the spell.
For them, the simple answer is "no, concentration forces the spell caster to make a choice, so, make one."

Agreed.

I want to emphasize that the "people problem" is easily rectified by a little leniency in timing. "Oh, I want to have cast guidance on him before he tried that roll he just rolled and sounds like he needs the little extra help on," is one circumstance where reaction guidance would be superior, except that, in character, what's actually happening is that the action prompting the ability check probably isn't under such time pressure that there was no moment for everyone to pause and think and remember to let the cleric say his little prayer.

And yes, if Concentration is what's in the way, that's just the design working as intended. I can see those who want to cast guidance while concentrating on other things supporting the change, and that is a place where, if that's a use case you find highly desirable and/or the lack of being able to do it a serious problem, I can understand wanting the change.

But the "people problem" is one I deem a non-problem because there's usually no reason not to let the retconned guidance have been cast. If there is in-character reason why the timing was important and the cleric wouldn't have known to cast it, or really should have had to think ahead to do so, then sure, be a stickler about it, but the timing of the casting where only the concentration and the action are the cost should not let speed-of-gameplay get in the way. "We typically do this" is a good enough reason to let people have used their powers appropriately, when they're not abusing it to somehow eke more efficiency out of their resources. (i.e., this isn't a situation where they wait for knowledge of whether it's needed or not, and they decide retroactively to spend the resource that is supposed to be a gamble when it no longer is a gamble.)

[Gignere]

I think WoTC is changing it because guidance is basically proficiency in every skill until t2 and almost t3, afterwards it is Jack of all trades. In t1 and early t2 for any skill the caster is proficient in it is basically expertise.

You can say guidance spam is fine because you can adjust the DCs to accommodate but seriously guidance is so much better compared to other cantrips balance wise, it’s basically a class feature instead of a cantrip. 1 per LR is too big of a nerf but 1 per short rest if you can apply it as a reaction would probably balance it better against Thaumaturgy.

[Segev]

I think WoTC is changing it because guidance is basically proficiency in every skill until t2 and almost t3, afterwards it is Jack of all trades. In t1 and early t2 for any skill the caster is proficient in it is basically expertise.

You can say guidance spam is fine because you can adjust the DCs to accommodate but seriously guidance is so much better compared to other cantrips balance wise, it’s basically a class feature instead of a cantrip. 1 per LR is too big of a nerf but 1 per short rest if you can apply it as a reaction would probably balance it better against Thaumaturgy.

Why adjust the DCs to compensate? A cleric or druid spent a very precious cantrip slot on this. I don't see characters succeeding more often at ability checks as that game-breaking of a problem. Yes, the rogue with expertise who gets guidance from the cleric will find DC 20 probably about as easy as the merely proficient without a cleric buffing him sees DC 15, but so what? The party has built for this. The cleric gave up another cantrip for it.

The problem you describe, Gignere, is one where guidance is either too powerful to be a cantrip, and thus should be a first level spell with possibly some additional buff to it to enable it to be worth the slot, or should be removed from the game because it breaks bounded accuracy too much.

I contend that it doesn't break bounded accuracy "too much," and that it's fine as-is. But I do not see the one-per-day "fix" as anything but stealth removal of the spell from the game, and the change to a reaction casting doesn't actually solve the issue you seem to be raising in your post.

[Psyren]

Whether it is WotC making the change or not, criticism of the change is equally (in)valid. You have reacted as if it would ruin the game to, for example, provide even a small list of examples of what kinds of tasks the game expects to be "hard," or a discussion section in the DMG on setting difficulty of tasks based on genre, because to you, it has never been a problem in the game. This is despite the fact that no amount of text in the books would force you to change how you set your DCs in your games.

It therefore comes across as very much an attitude of, "it's only a problem if it's a problem in my [Psyren's] games," when you turn around and tell me that it's fine for WotC to be contemplating this change as a rebuttal to my position that the rules for guidance are fine in 5.0, and that this proposed change makes guidance worse without making it any better.

1) No, no, I'm not getting dragged back into the DC examples argument. Plenty of other threads for that.

2) You can continue to say it's just a problem in my games all you want (ignoring all the other names I listed that have also been arguing against your position) - but again, the mere fact that they're looking at this spell this early on in the playtest cycle proves it's more widespread than you seem to believe. I could just as easily turn it around and say "it's not a problem because it hasn't been one in Segev's games." You're being as dismissive as you claim I'm being.



Ah. ...I think my argument against that position is that this won't change that. You're going to have the same gameplay loop, and the same amount of obnoxious interjection, but now you're going to have argument over whether you even CAN KNOW to use guidance.

It's not going to be obnoxious if it's not completely at-will. A limit of some kind will make the Guidance caster more judicious about which checks they use it on, especially when they never have to waste it on a success. The ONLY problem I have with their proposal is the limit is too harsh.

[Segev]

My point was in no small part to point out that I am being no more dismissive than you have been in the past, and that you are being inconsistent in whether something being a problem at "some tables" is a worthy reason to make a change or not. I can try to debate using others' standards, and generally try to because it is easier than trying to meta-debate over the standards of debate. But those standards need to be consistent. In the end, I am probably just bad at debating, since I can't ever seem to communicate what I mean, if the way people respond to what I say is any indication. :smallannoyed:

It's not going to be obnoxious if it's not completely at-will. A limit of some kind will make the Guidance caster more judicious about which checks they use it on, especially when they never have to waste it on a success. The ONLY problem I have with their proposal is the limit is too harsh.

Ah. I did not realize you saw the limit as a negotiable level of limit, rather than as being a problem in and of itself.

In that case, the best solution I can think of is to buff it to the point that it's worth a 1st level spell slot.

Of course, I'm not entirely sure what those of you who see it as being the problem Yakk spelled out see as redeemable about the spell at all. Why do you want the spell in the game, if it poses the problems it poses? What use cases do you want to see it used for? (Determining the desired use case is usually a good step towards figuring out what the spell actually needs to do.)

[Psyren]

My point was in no small part to point out that I am being no more dismissive than you have been in the past, and that you are being inconsistent in whether something being a problem at "some tables" is a worthy reason to make a change or not.

I'm not being inconsistent. For them to propose a Guidance change this early on, when we're likely multiple months away from the spells playtest, suggests that it's a bigger problem at more tables than you seem capable of believing it is. What we're doing here is proposing likely reasons why that might be. You are free to disregard those and substitute your own if you wish.


Of course, I'm not entirely sure what those of you who see it as being the problem Yakk spelled out see as redeemable about the spell at all. Why do you want the spell in the game, if it poses the problems it poses? What use cases do you want to see it used for? (Determining the desired use case is usually a good step towards figuring out what the spell actually needs to do.)

Is "I like the spell, but I can understand why it being constantly spammed and used as a reaction when it's not one, can be annoying" all that shocking a take? No, I don't want it deleted.



Ah. I did not realize you saw the limit as a negotiable level of limit, rather than as being a problem in and of itself.

In that case, the best solution I can think of is to buff it to the point that it's worth a 1st level spell slot.

That's certainly an option, but I for one like the so far unexplored design space of "cantrip with limits." I think that precedent is going to be useful for cantrip design in the future. Essentially it's giving the cantrip its own spell slot that doesn't conflict with any of your other ones, and that's handy.

You're a fan of codification right? What if they codified some concrete benefits to prestidigitation/thaumaturgy/druidcraft (alongside the at-will ones) but balanced them out by letting those benefits be accessible 1/rest or something? There's a lot of potential for "halftrip" design like this.

[Gignere]

Why adjust the DCs to compensate? A cleric or druid spent a very precious cantrip slot on this. I don't see characters succeeding more often at ability checks as that game-breaking of a problem. Yes, the rogue with expertise who gets guidance from the cleric will find DC 20 probably about as easy as the merely proficient without a cleric buffing him sees DC 15, but so what? The party has built for this. The cleric gave up another cantrip for it.

The problem you describe, Gignere, is one where guidance is either too powerful to be a cantrip, and thus should be a first level spell with possibly some additional buff to it to enable it to be worth the slot, or should be removed from the game because it breaks bounded accuracy too much.

I contend that it doesn't break bounded accuracy "too much," and that it's fine as-is. But I do not see the one-per-day "fix" as anything but stealth removal of the spell from the game, and the change to a reaction casting doesn't actually solve the issue you seem to be raising in your post.

Well that’s why they are playtesting a fix. Right now in game with no rogue nor bard, nor any class with expertise. So it’s me the Bladesinger and the Divine Soul sorcerer spamming guidance and effectively doing the rogue/bard role.

Basically with just guidance we have effectively jury rigged a solution for the lack of an expert class so guidance is definitely overtuned in the current paradigm. Maybe at higher levels it’s going to stop working but in t1 we’ve been as effective as your typical bard or rogue when it comes to skills.

[KorvinStarmast]

Well that’s why they are playtesting a fix. Right now in game with no rogue nor bard, nor any class with expertise. So it’s me the Bladesinger and the Divine Soul sorcerer spamming guidance and effectively doing the rogue/bard role.

Basically with just guidance we have effectively jury rigged a solution for the lack of an expert class so guidance is definitely overtuned in the current paradigm. Maybe at higher levels it’s going to stop working but in t1 we’ve been as effective as your typical bard or rogue when it comes to skills.
Ever heard of the help action? It's in Chapter 7 of the PHB. There is no general requirement for proficiency to help another PC, although there is a mention made in re thieves tools.

[Gignere]

Ever heard of the help action? It's in Chapter 7 of the PHB. There is no general requirement for proficiency to help another PC, although there is a mention made in re thieves tools.

Not sure what you mean we do liberally help one another in game.

[Psyren]

Ever heard of the help action? It's in Chapter 7 of the PHB. There is no general requirement for proficiency to help another PC, although there is a mention made in re thieves tools.

1) FYI - bold appears to be one of the things 1DnD is looking to change.

2) His point was that numerically, in Tier 1, Guidance is roughly on par with Expertise on average, which is correct (+2 vs. +2.5.) It falls off later, but when you can spam it nonstop before every check it's functionally on par.

[KorvinStarmast]

Not sure what you mean we do liberally help one another in game. Help, the action, usually provides advantage, per chapter 7, Working together, or it can mitigate/remove disadvantage.

1) FYI - bold appears to be one of the things 1DnD is looking to change.
And that's a crap idea, which I am mentioning in the feedback. Doing that isn't making the game better. Rewarding teamwork is a Good ThingTM.

[Gignere]

1) FYI - bold appears to be one of the things 1DnD is looking to change.

2) His point was that numerically, in Tier 1, Guidance is roughly on par with Expertise on average, which is correct (+2 vs. +2.5.) It falls off later, but when you can spam it nonstop before every check it's functionally on par.

It’s actually better than expertise in t1 because it also effectively grants proficiency to non proficient skills. And it is close to expertise and proficiency until PB is +4 which is late t2 early t3 already. At that point it merely becomes Jack of all trades.

[Psyren]

Help, the action, usually provides advantage, per chapter 7, Working together, or it can mitigate/remove disadvantage.
And that's a crap idea, which I am mentioning in the feedback. Doing that isn't making the game better. Rewarding teamwork is a Good ThingTM.

Teamwork is good but not every task can be improved by throwing more people at it. If I try to help a federal agent lie his way into the mafia with no training of my own, I'm more likely to just blow both our covers. The same goes for helping a watchmaker or a hacker or a neurosurgeon; some tasks just require precision.

[Amechra]

Honestly, Guidance should just be a Cleric feature that lets you Help on actions without needing an appropriate proficiency, but only if you have the opportunity to say a short prayer first.

[Kane0]

Honestly, Guidance should just be a Cleric feature that lets you Help on actions without needing an appropriate proficiency, but only if you have the opportunity to say a short prayer first.

I can dig it. Could we get Bard's countercharm back too though? It was a neat ability and I'd like to keep it around in some form so Bards can perform to counteract enemy charm/fear attempts

[Amechra]

I can dig it. Could we get Bard's countercharm back too though? It was a neat ability and I'd like to keep it around in some form so Bards can perform to counteract enemy charm/fear attempts

Of course! Why even bother having the Bard if you can't have sick Battle of the Bands-style back-and-forths?

[Psyren]

Honestly, Guidance should just be a Cleric feature that lets you Help on actions without needing an appropriate proficiency, but only if you have the opportunity to say a short prayer first.

For the dozenth(?) time, Guidance is on the Primal list too! Why do y'all hate Druids and Rangers? :smalltongue:

[Amechra]

For the dozenth(?) time, Guidance is on the Primal list too! Why do y'all hate Druids and Rangers? :smalltongue:

Because they should get their own dang class features?

[Gignere]

For the dozenth(?) time, Guidance is on the Primal list too! Why do y'all hate Druids and Rangers? :smalltongue:

If they keep guidance unchanged ranger will become the hands down best skill monkey in t1 and potentially t2 by being able to stack guidance with their proficiencies and expertise, since they get cantrips now.

[KorvinStarmast]

Honestly, Guidance should just be a Cleric feature that lets you Help on actions without needing an appropriate proficiency, but only if you have the opportunity to say a short prayer first. No. Hard No. You already don't need proficiency to Help. That's in Chapter 7. It's a good thing.

There are 12 classes and 3-6 players in each group. Assuming that there's always a cleric is bogus.

[Amechra]

No. Hard No. You already don't need proficiency to Help. That's in Chapter 7. It's a good thing.

There are 12 classes and 3-6 players in each group. Assuming that there's always a cleric is bogus.

Maybe you could, perhaps, actually pay attention to the context of the thread?

The discussion in this thread operates under the assumption that 1D&D is going to use the rules in the latest playtest document, where that rule is no longer a thing.

No amount of shouting at us to look at Chapter 7 of the PHB will change that fact, Korvin. So you might as well save your breath for when WotC asks for feedback.

[Psyren]

Because they should get their own dang class features?

Druids can pray too though.


If they keep guidance unchanged ranger will become the hands down best skill monkey in t1 and potentially t2 by being able to stack guidance with their proficiencies and expertise, since they get cantrips now.

Technically they have cantrips in 5e, you just need to burn a Fighting Style on it as of Tasha's. 1DD is making their lives easier, which is great, but it's not giving them something they couldn't already get.

[KorvinStarmast]

So you might as well save your breath for when WotC asks for feedback.
Wrong. The community has already fed back on what a bad idea the d20 test nonsense was in UA 1. Feeding back on other crap ideas is also a Great idea, and it's valid.

Maybe you could pay attention to the fact that this is a play test (albeit with incomplete rules so far) and it's all very much written in jello.

This play test is supposed to go on for another year and a half.
Don't bend over and just accept bad ideas.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Maybe you could, perhaps, actually pay attention to the context of the thread?

The discussion in this thread operates under the assumption that 1D&D is going to use the rules in the latest playtest document, where that rule is no longer a thing.

No amount of shouting at us to look at Chapter 7 of the PHB will change that fact, Korvin. So you might as well save your breath for when WotC asks for feedback.

I don't think anyone is assuming that these changes are definitely going to see print, at least I hope they're not. That's unreasonable, I want to stress this as very unreasonable, especially considering that with just two UA released we've seen several rules changed multiple times already.

With regards to the objection that Korvin has stated - I believe he is stating his objections with context in mind. I'll echo his sentiments here, I don't think the version of help or guidance we got in this UA is an improvement. I also don't agree that your suggestion would be an improvement either, for several reasons but chief among them being that there shouldn't need to be explicit magic involved for someone to help in non-proficient tasks because in the first place not every task should require proficiency to help to begin with. The better solution, in my opinion, is to not change these rules. Guidance doesn't need to be a class feature and help doesn't need to require proficiency for all tasks. If we continue to discuss on things iterating on these changes, taking steps back isn't somehow less valid than what you propose, which is just taking further steps forward.

tl;dr - Saying "the idea is bad, scrap it / don't change it" is a perfectly valid response. These changes aren't set in stone, we'll see some people attempting to salvage ideas that they believe have merit and others who see the same idea as not worth saving.

[Segev]

That's certainly an option, but I for one like the so far unexplored design space of "cantrip with limits." I think that precedent is going to be useful for cantrip design in the future. Essentially it's giving the cantrip its own spell slot that doesn't conflict with any of your other ones, and that's handy.

You're a fan of codification right? What if they codified some concrete benefits to prestidigitation/thaumaturgy/druidcraft (alongside the at-will ones) but balanced them out by letting those benefits be accessible 1/rest or something? There's a lot of potential for "halftrip" design like this.

I also like that design space. I have long thought a cantrip that let somebody spend hit dice as if healing during a short rest without having to actually short rest would be cool, as an example.

I do not like the idea, however, of limits that involve a unique resource for that cantrip. It's...inelegant, at best. The limits should be based on expending resources that exist already, in new ways, I think. I confess that I can't think of a good such resource for something like guidance.

[Kane0]

I also like that design space. I have long thought a cantrip that let somebody spend hit dice as if healing during a short rest without having to actually short rest would be cool, as an example.


Once upon a time I would have gladly jumped at such a concept, but it appears that since around-about Tasha's time the Short Rest has begun to slowly be phased out so I worry this would further knock it down into obscurity.

[Witty Username]

It does. It fiddles with something that works well.


TBF, the same could be said for the healing spirit changes that I'm still mad about. And guidance is arguably the more powerful spell.

At least with the proposed guidance changes it won't affect how it is used at my tables. It will mostly amount to it being brought up less when it wouldn't have affected the outcome anyway.

[Psyren]

tl;dr - Saying "the idea is bad, scrap it / don't change it" is a perfectly valid response. These changes aren't set in stone, we'll see some people attempting to salvage ideas that they believe have merit and others who see the same idea as not worth saving.

"Scrap it" is valid, but "that's not how it works, go read the PHB!" isn't - not for something that 1DnD explicitly changed. Until we get a new Rules Glossary, Help requires proficiency during this playtest.

And for the record, I think the idea has merit even if the execution went too far. It shouldn't apply to every single skill check, but the ones that require proficiency should definitely require proficient helpers too.


I also like that design space. I have long thought a cantrip that let somebody spend hit dice as if healing during a short rest without having to actually short rest would be cool, as an example.

That would be tough to calibrate power-wise. You'd have to make it take less than an hour (otherwise why not just short rest) but the next shortest duration is 10 minutes, and we already have Catnap for that. Any less and you're now above a 3rd-level spell in power.


Once upon a time I would have gladly jumped at such a concept, but it appears that since around-about Tasha's time the Short Rest has begun to slowly be phased out so I worry this would further knock it down into obscurity.

The new Bard still having Font of Inspiration as a feature suggests they're not getting rid of it at all.

[Kane0]

The new Bard still having Font of Inspiration as a feature suggests they're not getting rid of it at all.

Oh that's good, because I didn't say getting rid of it. I said slowly phasing it out.

[Psyren]

Oh that's good, because I didn't say getting rid of it. I said slowly phasing it out.

Why would they continue to print entire features that revolve around a mechanic they're phasing out? :smallconfused:

FoI isn't even the only one - Tireless, Musician, and several Epic Boons care about short rests too.

[animorte]

Oh that's good, because I didn't say getting rid of it. I said slowly phasing it out.

I don't necessarily think they've been trying to phase it out. They just can't decide on a standard between proficiency bonus, ability modifier, based on level, or tiers of play. Depending on which one that particular designer decides on with the new (sub)class they're about to print might determine which rest it replenishes from. This is something that really bugs me, limiting very similarly functioning features with entirely different methods. I doubt we'll see much of a difference, but I do have some hope.

[ProsecutorGodot]

"Scrap it" is valid, but "that's not how it works, go read the PHB!" isn't - not for something that 1DnD explicitly changed. Until we get a new Rules Glossary, Help requires proficiency during this playtest.

And for the record, I think the idea has merit even if the execution went too far. It shouldn't apply to every single skill check, but the ones that require proficiency should definitely require proficient helpers too.

My take on this is that Korvin is repeatedly mentioning the PHB entry so that people understand his preferred alternative - for things to remain as they were in the 2014 PHB.

And to add to this, his efforts seem to have been in vain. If you had actually read the help action within chapter 7 you would know that if a check requires proficiency the helper is already required to be proficient. It sounds to me like you would also prefer for things to remain unchanged. For reference.

A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves’ tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can’t help another character in that task.

[Kane0]

I don't necessarily think they've been trying to phase it out. They just can't decide on a standard between proficiency bonus, ability modifier, based on level, or tiers of play. Depending on which one that particular designer decides on with the new (sub)class they're about to print might determine which rest it replenishes from. This is something that really bugs me, limiting very similarly functioning features with entirely different methods. I doubt we'll see much of a difference, but I do have some hope.

Good point, and I would have hoped the devs communicated internally better than that. But stranger things have happened.


Why would they continue to print entire features that revolve around a mechanic they're phasing out? :smallconfused:

FoI isn't even the only one - Tireless, Musician, and several Epic Boons care about short rests too.

The trend is moving towards Prof bonus times per long rest. I don't mind that, but I would also like to see Short Rests incorporated into it, like recovering one use on a Short Rest and all of them on a Long Rest, or something like that. Give each character a good number of reasons to want both long and short rests.

[Psyren]

The trend is moving towards Prof bonus times per long rest. I don't mind that, but I would also like to see Short Rests incorporated into it, like recovering one use on a Short Rest and all of them on a Long Rest, or something like that. Give each character a good number of reasons to want both long and short rests.

I wouldn't mind either. Maybe that will be a "high power variant" or something else global, so they don't have to keep adding it to some PB/LR abilities but not others.

[Composer99]

I don't think anyone is assuming that these changes are definitely going to see print, at least I hope they're not. That's unreasonable, I want to stress this as very unreasonable, especially considering that with just two UA released we've seen several rules changed multiple times already.

With regards to the objection that Korvin has stated - I believe he is stating his objections with context in mind. I'll echo his sentiments here, I don't think the version of help or guidance we got in this UA is an improvement. I also don't agree that your suggestion would be an improvement either, for several reasons but chief among them being that there shouldn't need to be explicit magic involved for someone to help in non-proficient tasks because in the first place not every task should require proficiency to help to begin with. The better solution, in my opinion, is to not change these rules. Guidance doesn't need to be a class feature and help doesn't need to require proficiency for all tasks. If we continue to discuss on things iterating on these changes, taking steps back isn't somehow less valid than what you propose, which is just taking further steps forward.

tl;dr - Saying "the idea is bad, scrap it / don't change it" is a perfectly valid response. These changes aren't set in stone, we'll see some people attempting to salvage ideas that they believe have merit and others who see the same idea as not worth saving.


You know what?

No.

(1) Something that comes across as an allusion to spanking ("Don't bend over and just accept bad ideas." - direct quote) is not a reasonable/valid/acceptable way of expressing dislike of a game mechanic. (This might have been intended to be more of an allusion to doormats or spinelessness, but suffice to say whatever the intent it comes across badly.)

(2) Coming across as presenting one's dislike/distaste for a game mechanic is synonymous with an inarguably objective assessment of its quality - to the point where one abandons a bare minimum of constructive civility - is just the sort of thing that gets us to pointless edition warring, threads turning into tedious pages of back-and-forth, whatever the slang word is for line-by-line argumentative deconstructions, and all-around nastiness. That's on top of the natural tendency for incivility to provoke reciprocation. These may not be intended, but as the saying goes, intent isn't magic.

So, yes, actually, I think it's entirely fair to expect folks to dial things back a bit.

As for the actual implementation of guidance in the expert UA playtest, to my mind its 1D&D implementation is unsatisfactory - the applying to one creature once per long rest business has a certain fiddliness that I feel doesn't fit the design aesthetic of 5e generally or the at-will nature of cantrips specifically.

I should think that either keeping it as-is from the 2014 rules or making it into a limited-use class feature would be an improvement over the playtest document. Since we already have a precedent of a successful (and, as far as I am aware, popular) limited-use guidance-like mechanic in the form of Bardic Inspiration, I myself think the latter is preferable; certainly I'm not aware of any class where "able to give out +d4 to ability checks at will all day" is an essential element of that class's fantasy or essential to its gameplay writ large. I'm also not convinced that the fact that druids have guidance on their class spell list in the 2014 PHB makes having guidance the cantrip or a guidance-like feature an essential element of the druid class fantasy, whereas either the cantrip or a limited-use feature strike me as well-suited for clerics; at the same time I don't see why something of that nature can't be part of the druid class fantasy. If guidance were to become a limited-use class feature, one may as well grant druids a similar feature; but just as guidance as-is and Bardic Inspiration are distinct from one another, it would be well if any such druid feature is also somewhat distinct from those in turn.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You know what?

No.

(1) Something that comes across as an allusion to spanking ("Don't bend over and just accept bad ideas." - direct quote) is not a reasonable/valid/acceptable way of expressing dislike of a game mechanic. (This might have been intended to be more of an allusion to doormats or spinelessness, but suffice to say whatever the intent it comes across badly.)

(2) Coming across as presenting one's dislike/distaste for a game mechanic is synonymous with an inarguably objective assessment of its quality - to the point where one abandons a bare minimum of constructive civility - is just the sort of thing that gets us to pointless edition warring, threads turning into tedious pages of back-and-forth, whatever the slang word is for line-by-line argumentative deconstructions, and all-around nastiness. That's on top of the natural tendency for incivility to provoke reciprocation. These may not be intended, but as the saying goes, intent isn't magic.

So, yes, actually, I think it's entirely fair to expect folks to dial things back a bit.
To point 1 - I wasn't making any comments as to how either point was phrased, only that in my opinion Korvin's point was being dismissed or misunderstood.

To point 2 - This goes both ways, if your claim is that someone isn't allowed to make their claims of dissatisfaction then those claiming to be satisfied (or in this case, less dissatisfied) shouldn't be given the opportunity to comment either. Your opinion of how the argument is phrased isn't relevant to how valid their opinion might be.

With regard to my statement of what is reasonable, it didn't have anything to do with anyone's opinion on how things should be. My statement of what was unreasonable had to do with making continuous assumptions that the features as presented in the current UA should be the assumed "final version" of the feature and that going backwards is pointless. I said this was unreasonable because it shuts out discussion on what can be improved on it or whether a change should be made in the first place. Why I said this is because it looked to me like Korvin's preference for the Help rules to remain as is was being dismissed by Amechra under the pretense that "it's already changed, so don't keep talking about it like that" when Korvin's argument was simply "don't change it / change it back".

I'll repeat - to say "the discussion in this thread operates under the assumption that 1D&D is going to use the rules in the latest playtest document, where that rule is no longer a thing." like Amechra suggested in their post is unreasonable. I consider this to be an especially unreasonable statement when they offer their own alternatives and suggest that Korvin's alternative (to not change things) is outside of the context of the discussion.

What I did not say is that their proposed alternative is unreasonable. I don't like it, but I'm not going to say their opinion is less credible just because I disagree with it.



As for the actual implementation of guidance in the expert UA playtest, to my mind its 1D&D implementation is unsatisfactory - the applying to one creature once per long rest business has a certain fiddliness that I feel doesn't fit the design aesthetic of 5e generally or the at-will nature of cantrips specifically.

I should think that either keeping it as-is from the 2014 rules or making it into a limited-use class feature would be an improvement over the playtest document. Since we already have a precedent of a successful (and, as far as I am aware, popular) limited-use guidance-like mechanic in the form of Bardic Inspiration, I myself think the latter is preferable; certainly I'm not aware of any class where "able to give out +d4 to ability checks at will all day" is an essential element of that class's fantasy or essential to its gameplay writ large. I'm also not convinced that the fact that druids have guidance on their class spell list in the 2014 PHB makes having guidance the cantrip or a guidance-like feature an essential element of the druid class fantasy, whereas either the cantrip or a limited-use feature strike me as well-suited for clerics; at the same time I don't see why something of that nature can't be part of the druid class fantasy. If guidance were to become a limited-use class feature, one may as well grant druids a similar feature; but just as guidance as-is and Bardic Inspiration are distinct from one another, it would be well if any such druid feature is also somewhat distinct from those in turn.

I'm not even sure if the objection here was in regards to having Guidance as a class feature, the objection was more focused on the Help Action changes and a suggestion to double down on them. I definitely think that Guidance as a class feature isn't a terrible awful idea but it certainly would be if you also changed a general rule (in this instance making it much worse) to function around a single specific class.

Instead of focusing on the Guidance part, focus on the Help Action part. There are classes and races that have additional benefits to using the Help Action, and they gained these benefits without making the general Help Action worse. If you want a certain class (Cleric, in Amechra's example) to have a better ability to help people through an alternative use of Guidance, I think we should focus on giving them an improvement that isn't something that was just removed from every other class's toolbox.

It could be a simple change. Assuming Help Action works as it does in the 2014 PHB (reminder, the only practical difference is that it now requires proficiency in all tasks instead of for those that would explicitly require proficiency) then you could instead have the Cleric able to help in all skill checks regardless of their proficiencies. This would allow a Cleric using Guidance to assist in a check to pick a lock even without proficiency without limiting other classes from assisting in the many other possible ability checks. This gives Cleric's a small niche in always being able to help thanks to their gods guidance and no one else has to lose anything in return.

[Kane0]

Would be cool to pair up trickery cleric with rogue to get bonus action help too

[animorte]

The trend is moving towards Prof bonus times per long rest. I don't mind that, but I would also like to see Short Rests incorporated into it, like recovering one use on a Short Rest and all of them on a Long Rest, or something like that. Give each character a good number of reasons to want both long and short rests.

This is precisely what I’m hoping for.

[KorvinStarmast]

As for the actual implementation of guidance in the expert UA playtest, to my mind its 1D&D implementation is unsatisfactory

- the applying to one creature once per long rest business has a certain fiddliness that I feel doesn't fit the design aesthetic of 5e generally or the at-will nature of cantrips specifically. concur.

I should think that either keeping it as-is from the 2014 rules or making it into a limited-use class feature would be an improvement over the playtest document.
I can get on board that train.
If they are going to cancel it as a cantrip, fine, cancel it as a cantrip. Then, do something else to reflect the idea that a cleric/druid can 'do something that magically aids the party' and codify that class feature. (Make it a level 1 feature and maybe delay Domain choice to level 3?) Make the hard break.
I'd miss the cantrip, maybe, but I'd always find another one. Your suggested path forward is the better idea if
they want to limit its application
and
they want to make it like Bardic Inspiration - which they are screwing with also.
I am not sure I like that either but since it isn't a cantrip (note: I have used BI a lot!) my only "WTF?" is why move FoI to 7?

[Segev]

Once upon a time I would have gladly jumped at such a concept, but it appears that since around-about Tasha's time the Short Rest has begun to slowly be phased out so I worry this would further knock it down into obscurity.Perhaps, but it's a separate issue. I agree that phasing out short rests is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done, though. It is often said that this is in response to five minute adventuring days, but that strikes me as trying to solve the problem of students eating out too much by removing the kitchens from the dorms.

Regardless, short rests should do significantly more than let you spend HD for healing.


That would be tough to calibrate power-wise. You'd have to make it take less than an hour (otherwise why not just short rest) but the next shortest duration is 10 minutes, and we already have Catnap for that. Any less and you're now above a 3rd-level spell in power.The catnap spell grants you an entire short rest. This currently does - and should continue to, to my mind - grant benefits that are more significant than the ability to spend HD. (Incidentally, I also dislike catnap because it's got the same fiddly once per person per long rest thing going on; it's a third level spell and it still requires TEN MINUTES of people being highly vulnerable. If you want to cast it after every fight, be my guest. It's not like it's a ritual.)

My proposed healing cantrip would allow ONE HD to be expended and rolled per casting. Same "amount rolled plus con mod" healing as if you'd short rested and spent only that die. It would also be an action to cast it, and probably a touch range spell. It is meant for in-combat healing, even pop-up healing, though it is also meant to generally not be all that useful as such.

Is spamming it until somebody burns all his HD on healing more powerful than catnap? I don't actually think so, but if it is, then that's a problem with short rests being gutted of all they're meant to do, and with catnap potentially being too weak.

Honestly, I could see catnap requiring only 1 minute rather than 10, and affecting people as many times as they get it cast on them, and still not being overpoewred. Again: 3rd level spell slot every time. The only problem is if it somehow winds up in the hands of a warlock. So that probably explains the limit put into the spell. Though you could make it a "Concentration for 1 minute" duration and thus exclude the caster from it. This would still be abusable if you had two warlocks with the spell, though. Maybe make it consume an expensive material component, instead. Yes, I like the expensive material component requirement. Maybe 100 gp per casting.

Or, instead of "only once per target per long rest," make it, "The spell slot expended on this cannot be recovered by any means until you complete a long rest."


But yeah, while I am unfond of the "PB/long rest" resource tracks they're standardizing everywhere, I would actually be less annoyed by them if they had a "recover 1 use on a short rest" clause in them. I still prefer it being something like a stat mod rather than PB, but meh. Or better yet, a class-specific resource, like ki. There's just something ... dead-feeling about every resource having its own, flavorless track exclusive to itself.

[KorvinStarmast]

I agree that phasing out short rests is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done, though. Agree.

Regardless, short rests should do significantly more than let you spend HD for healing.
ki points for the win! :smallbiggrin:

The catnap spell grants you an entire short rest. This currently does - and should continue to, to my mind - grant benefits that are more significant than the ability to spend HD. (Incidentally, I also dislike catnap because it's got the same fiddly once per person per long rest thing going on; it's a third level spell and it still requires TEN MINUTES of people being highly vulnerable. If you want to cast it after every fight, be my guest. It's not like it's a ritual.) My observation is that cat nap is one of the spells that the game never needed.


My proposed healing cantrip would allow ONE HD to be expended and rolled per casting. Same "amount rolled plus con mod" healing as if you'd short rested and spent only that die. It would also be an action to cast it, and probably a touch range spell. It is meant for in-combat healing, even pop-up healing, though it is also meant to generally not be all that useful as such. Interesting, and someone is burning a resource.

But yeah, while I am unfond of the "PB/long rest" resource tracks they're standardizing everywhere, I would actually be less annoyed by them if they had a "recover 1 use on a short rest" clause in them. I can get aboard that band wagon.

[Witty Username]

I think the nerf to Guidance in the UA is significantly overestimated.

1/long rest, but only used on a failed check, which means alot of guidance use will be not used when it wouldn't have mattered, also as the table will usually see the roll after a failed check guidance is pretty likely to only be used when it would have a reasonable chance to change the likelyhood.
All this amounts to is guidance being called less in play, and better matches up with how people tend to want to use the spell, and it no longer requiring concentration will help out when concentrating on long duration spells which cleric has a few but druid definitely wants to do, and the reaction use means it can be used in combat when it would otherwise be disadvantageous to do so.

My only note is the 1/long rest may not actually be necessary given at will generally won't increase its use cases.

It is probably still the best cantrip in the game (sans maybe minor illusion).

[Psyren]

The catnap spell grants you an entire short rest. This currently does - and should continue to, to my mind - grant benefits that are more significant than the ability to spend HD.

Sure, but catnap is also 3rd level. Even just boiling catnap all the way down to the "spend HD" portion of a short rest isn't enough to justify going from 3rd-level spell to cantrip, in my opinion.


(Incidentally, I also dislike catnap because it's got the same fiddly once per person per long rest thing going on; it's a third level spell and it still requires TEN MINUTES of people being highly vulnerable. If you want to cast it after every fight, be my guest. It's not like it's a ritual.)

10 minutes of sleep sounds bad until you're comparing it to the alternative, which is an entire hour of the whole group doing nothing, even if they're all awake. Sure those three people you're catnapping are briefly vulnerable, but the rest standing watch for 10 minutes is very reasonable and highly unlikely to result in danger. Worst case scenario you need to slap them awake and be out a 3rd-level slot.


But yeah, while I am unfond of the "PB/long rest" resource tracks they're standardizing everywhere, I would actually be less annoyed by them if they had a "recover 1 use on a short rest" clause in them. I still prefer it being something like a stat mod rather than PB, but meh. Or better yet, a class-specific resource, like ki. There's just something ... dead-feeling about every resource having its own, flavorless track exclusive to itself.

Sure, no complaint here. A general rule (even a variant one) to recover 1 PB/LR use on a SR is fine by me.


I think the nerf to Guidance in the UA is significantly overestimated.

1/long rest, but only used on a failed check, which means alot of guidance use will be not used when it wouldn't have mattered, also as the table will usually see the roll after a failed check guidance is pretty likely to only be used when it would have a reasonable chance to change the likelyhood.
All this amounts to is guidance being called less in play, and better matches up with how people tend to want to use the spell, and it no longer requiring concentration will help out when concentrating on long duration spells which cleric has a few but druid definitely wants to do, and the reaction use means it can be used in combat when it would otherwise be disadvantageous to do so.

My only note is the 1/long rest may not actually be necessary given at will generally won't increase its use cases.

It is probably still the best cantrip in the game (sans maybe minor illusion).

Exactly; even with the LR restriction - which, to reiterate, I am against - it's still really good for a cantrip. Which just shows you how powerful the original one was.

[Segev]

I think the nerf to Guidance in the UA is significantly overestimated.

1/long rest, but only used on a failed check, which means alot of guidance use will be not used when it wouldn't have mattered, also as the table will usually see the roll after a failed check guidance is pretty likely to only be used when it would have a reasonable chance to change the likelyhood.
All this amounts to is guidance being called less in play, and better matches up with how people tend to want to use the spell, and it no longer requiring concentration will help out when concentrating on long duration spells which cleric has a few but druid definitely wants to do, and the reaction use means it can be used in combat when it would otherwise be disadvantageous to do so.

My only note is the 1/long rest may not actually be necessary given at will generally won't increase its use cases.

It is probably still the best cantrip in the game (sans maybe minor illusion).



Exactly; even with the LR restriction - which, to reiterate, I am against - it's still really good for a cantrip. Which just shows you how powerful the original one was.
I strongly disagree. The once per person per day limit will make it not worth taking, as far as I'm concerned. I doubt anybody I currently game with would bother with it, either.

Leaving aside the difficulty of determining if a check was "failed" or not, the limit of once per person per day will run hard up against the "bigger spider" problem, and will also be compounded by the fact that the question of whether the d4 could possibly make the difference will make people hesitant to use it when it could be wasted. Now, maybe they'll do something like "if it turns a failure into success, it can't be used again on that person until that person takes a long rest," the way the soul knife skill boost works for whether the resource is expended. But even then, I would not waste a cantrip slot on something that will change only one skill check to a success per day, maybe, per person.

You may argue, "But, Segev, you're just an idiot for thinking that it changes more than one failure to a success per person per day, anyway." And maybe you're right. But it certainly feels a lot better to see the spell's effect be used frequently than to see it as something I have to carefully hoard.

Again: CANTRIPS should not be something you carefully hoard. You should not generally need to ask yourself, "Is this what I want to use up my cantrip on for today?" That's counter to the whole point of cantrips. Even my proposed healing spell only triggers that problem in very early levels, and it's a mutual choice on that 1 HD that the level 1 PC has.

As far as I'm concerned, the 1/LR/person thing makes it a trap spell that would be better removed from the game rather than tricking people into wasting the cantrip slot on it.


Sure, but catnap is also 3rd level. Even just boiling catnap all the way down to the "spend HD" portion of a short rest isn't enough to justify going from 3rd-level spell to cantrip, in my opinion.It is in mine; the "spend HD" portion of a short rest is the least important aspect of it. It's not nothing, by any means, but it's not the main reason to take a short rest. If you're taking a short rest only because you need to spend HD, then you either have a very unusual party, your short rest PCs have not been using their resources very effectively, or something particularly weird is going on with this particular adventuring day. (Or, as they seem to be moving away from SR abilities, the shift in game design has made the game worse.)

Catnap is also a pretty weak 3rd level spell, if I'm honest. The situations where the difference between 10 minutes for 1/2 to 3/4 the party to get SR abilities back and 1 hour for everyone to take one is truly significant are rather few and far between. Good if you've holed yourself up and have to hold off active enemies gathering outside the door, and want to make sure they don't enjoy their own short rest, perhaps, but if you can hold them off for 10 minutes, you can hold them off for an hour. It's actively worse if you're really in a situation where the short rest is in danger of interruption, because while it's only 1/6 as long, if it gets interrupted, you can't merely start it over; you've blown a 3rd level spell slot and need to actually take a full hour's rest unless you're willing to blow another one.

I am all for potions or other magic items / features / dungeon encounter points / whatever that will let one or more characters short rest quickly. Anything that takes at least 1 minute is sufficient to make it not really combat-usable, which is all I see as a base requirement. Heck, I wouldn't mind it being something one could use in the first round of combat; I mainly would want to avoid burning through resources in a fight and then "short resting" as a turn to have them all back to continue the fight with, at least not without it being something at the minimum Very Rare.

But catnap is something I consider periodically on various characters, but have yet to find one where I would spend the spell known slot on it. Even as a wizard, I think I'd only pick it up low on my list of priorities, or if it were offered to me and all I had to do was spend the gold to copy it over. (It's not so weak that I'd refuse to spend the gold, but if it's coming at opportunity cost for other 3rd-level, and a number of 2nd-level spells, I probably would pass it up in favor of those other spells.)


10 minutes of sleep sounds bad until you're comparing it to the alternative, which is an entire hour of the whole group doing nothing, even if they're all awake. Sure those three people you're catnapping are briefly vulnerable, but the rest standing watch for 10 minutes is very reasonable and highly unlikely to result in danger. Worst case scenario you need to slap them awake and be out a 3rd-level slot.Yes, that's 1/6 as long as a full hour's rest, and that might be useful sometimes, but it's just not enough better to make it worth the opportunity cost of knowing a different 3rd level spell. If I had the spell on hand, I'd probably use it, but the opportunity costs to get to the point where I have it on hand are such that it's really expensive. And the cost of a 3rd level spell slot to recover other characters' SR resources is also very high, at least until late Tier 2.

Now, if you get this on a Warlock somehow (multiclassing would require at least level 10, I think), it's potentially broken, but only potentially. The ability to short rest yourself for 10 minutes of sleep, and take 2 other PCs with you who also need short rests, actually is pretty powerful, because now short resting more or less at will 10 minutes at a time is very potent for a warlock. And that's probably why it has the 1/day/person limitation.

Regardless, if all catnap was useful for was spending HD to heal, I definitely wouldn't take it. I can think of times I'd use it, sure, if I had it, even just for that, but they're very rare. I do not see a cantrip that lets you spend 1 HD to heal as being overpowered just because catnap exists. Short rests simply do too much more than the HD healing. And if they don't anymore because of the design shift, then catnap is not worth a 3rd level spell known, period.


Sure, no complaint here. A general rule (even a variant one) to recover 1 PB/LR use on a SR is fine by me.Yeah, this makes SRs useful, serves the purpose of reducing incidences of 5 minute adventuring days, and makes spending those PB/LR resources feel less "bigger spider"y because if THIS instance is a waste, we can always SR to get it back, and if you really need to burn through it, you can, and still don't have to stop for the day to get it back.

[Psyren]

RE: usefulness of Catnap - that's going to vary wildly depending on how easy it is for a table to get an hour of downtime to Short Rest, which can even vary within a campaign (e.g. inflitrating a dungeon with patrols vs. just strolling through the wilderness etc) so I'm not going to argue about it; anything I say will be irrelevant in 1DnD anyway since everyone's becoming prepared, so we'll be able to slot it in when it's useful and ignore it when it's not.

RE: "I and the people I game with won't take new Guidance if it goes live the with 1/LR restriction" - again, I'll be right there in the trenches with you selecting "Highly Dissatisfied" on the survey if they ask about it. But will I swear off the spell if it goes live as currently presented, I can guarantee I'll still take it - that's all I'm saying.

[Segev]

RE: usefulness of Catnap - that's going to vary wildly depending on how easy it is for a table to get an hour of downtime to Short Rest, which can even vary within a campaign (e.g. inflitrating a dungeon with patrols vs. just strolling through the wilderness etc) so I'm not going to argue about it; anything I say will be irrelevant in 1DnD anyway since everyone's becoming prepared, so we'll be able to slot it in when it's useful and ignore it when it's not.

RE: "I and the people I game with won't take new Guidance if it goes live the with 1/LR restriction" - again, I'll be right there in the trenches with you selecting "Highly Dissatisfied" on the survey if they ask about it. But will I swear off the spell if it goes live as currently presented, I can guarantee I'll still take it - that's all I'm saying.

Fair enough. My point on catnap is simply that, to me, it is not as useful a guide on the power of a cantrip to let you spend HD to heal as you say it is. It's less useful, I think, than you think, but I am not saying it's useless.

We agree on the second point, just not to the degree as to how bad the change is. You'll still take the spell even if they leave the 1/LR thing in there. I will not, and I don't know anybody who will IRL or even in my gaming groups, and I would discourage anybody (including you) from taking it. But my discouragement is not force of law or anything. I just think you're wasting a cantrip pick.

I admit I'll be interested to see, should this change go forward, whether you still feel it's something you are happy picking on characters after a few months of play with it.

[Psyren]

I admit I'll be interested to see, should this change go forward, whether you still feel it's something you are happy picking on characters after a few months of play with it.

What other cantrip would approach its out-of-combat utility? Thaumaturgy and Druidcraft maybe, with a permissive DM, and even then I can combine Guidance with them anyway.

[Yakk]

What other cantrip would approach its out-of-combat utility? Thaumaturgy and Druidcraft maybe, with a permissive DM, and even then I can combine Guidance with them anyway.
Both Minor Illusion and Prestidigitation have lots of out-of-combat utility. Mage hand as well.

[Psyren]

Both Minor Illusion and Prestidigitation have lots of out-of-combat utility. Mage hand as well.

None of which are on the Divine or Primal list so pretty irrelevant :smallconfused:

[Segev]

What other cantrip would approach its out-of-combat utility? Thaumaturgy and Druidcraft maybe, with a permissive DM, and even then I can combine Guidance with them anyway.

Ah. Is it just that they only left damage cantrips, guidance, and the presto-alikes on the divine and primal lists?

[animorte]

Sorry folks, but mage hand is the winner for me. I've never really put that much stock into guidance though, so feel free to ignore my lunacy.

[Psyren]

Ah. Is it just that they only left damage cantrips, guidance, and the presto-alikes on the divine and primal lists?

Not sure what you mean by "left"; there's no big change here between 5e and 1DD. Cleric had essentially nothing outside of damage cantrips, Guidance and Thaumaturgy before either. Druid had a bit more than Guidance and Druidcraft if you went outside core, i.e. the elemental cantrips from EEPC (Shape Water, Gust, Mold Earth, Create Bonfire) but in core they were similarly starved.

Essentially, Guidance is still your best utility option for these two lists even if the nerf goes through as printed. I'm still going to push for buffs too but that's the reality of the situation.


Sorry folks, but mage hand is the winner for me. I've never really put that much stock into guidance though, so feel free to ignore my lunacy.

I'm not saying Guidance > Mage Hand. I'm saying that if you're a cleric or a druid (or better yet, a Ranger/Paladin), it doesn't matter how good Mage Hand is.

[animorte]

I'm not saying Guidance > Mage Hand. I'm saying that if you're a cleric or a druid (or better yet, a Ranger/Paladin), it doesn't matter how good Mage Hand is.

Oh, I know you're not. Also the game still very much cares if you're Gith or picked up Telekinetic (neither of which I saw in either UA). :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Oh, I know you're not. Also the game still very much cares if you're Gith or picked up Telekinesis (neither of which I saw in either UA). :smalltongue:

Understandable as neither option is core, and that's what the UA is focused on.

(I assume you meant Telekinetic rather than Telekinesis here)

[Kane0]

Also Magic Initiate is a 1st level freebie feat from the Character Origins playtest.

[Segev]

Also Magic Initiate is a 1st level freebie feat from the Character Origins playtest.

Right, but to Psyren's point, that still leaves the cleric with a need to fill out his cantrip picks, and just how many damage cantrips does one need? His argument is - if I understand it correctly - that guidance may be bad, but it's better than yet another way to do a d8 of damage each round, when you already have one of those.

[Witty Username]

Right, but to Psyren's point, that still leaves the cleric with a need to fill out his cantrip picks, and just how many damage cantrips does one need? His argument is - if I understand it correctly - that guidance may be bad, but it's better than yet another way to do a d8 of damage each round, when you already have one of those.
I don't know about Psyren, but it is definitely my opinion.
For most casters I tend to only have 2 damage cantrips, usually 1 attack cantrip, 1 save cantrip, preferably 2 different damage types. And utility spells tend to take priority: Guidance/Minor illusion (If they were on the same list I would take both) being at the top of that list.
Cleric is something of an exception, I tend to only take Sacred Flame, because I usually have a weapon that is more effective than an attack cantrip anyway and their attack cantrip list is almost non-existant.

[animorte]

I’m following up on the most previous response. You only need maybe a couple damage cantrips, but there’s a lot more room for utility.

[Psyren]

Right, but to Psyren's point, that still leaves the cleric with a need to fill out his cantrip picks, and just how many damage cantrips does one need? His argument is - if I understand it correctly - that guidance may be bad, but it's better than yet another way to do a d8 of damage each round, when you already have one of those.

Correct, and also - while Magic Initiate is a fantastic 1st level feat (especially if you're a caster), there's still a tradeoff to choosing it - and we know from Dragonlance there are going to be some really strong or flavorful alternatives for your 1st level feat printed in upcoming books. My character might want Initiate of High Sorcery instead for example so I can become an Adept as soon as possible.



Cleric is something of an exception, I tend to only take Sacred Flame, because I usually have a weapon that is more effective than an attack cantrip anyway and their attack cantrip list is almost non-existant.

I generally want both Sacred Flame and Toll The Dead prepped if I can.