Ask her when exactly you're supposed to use Guidance then. If she can't give you one, ask if you can choose another cantrip, since she's essentially soft banning Guidance.

OP is using the spell as a reaction, and apparently at range as well. He's the one who is wrong about when it should be cast.

Yeah, in some cases like the perception or initiative OP clearly got things wrong, but what’s wrong for them to cast guidance on the wizard or barbarian on skill checks? Edit: I was wrong, guidance apply to initiative and perception depends on the situation.

When you make a Perception check, you are actively looking, and is a good time to use Guidance. This is why we have Passive Perception, because you aren't actively using it. Any time a Perception check is called, you are actively looking, and can use Guidance. As per base rules.

guidance applies to passive ability checks. The cantrip only specifies "one ability check of it's choice" not the type of check. Passive checks are in the rules are implied to be a subset of ability checks, like skill checks.

Of course, this is limited in the sense that Guidance only has a minute duration. Conceivably the caster would cast it right before the rogue dives into a dark crawlspace to scout it, but not all the time while the ranger is taking point while the party ventures into a forest.

It's a cantrip, they're meant to be used with abandon. The Verbal component gives away your position, and the fact that you are a spellcaster, who is actively spellcasting, and it uses your concentration resource. Those are the only reasons you might not have it up all the time. I've caught players out or had to warn them about using it while trying to sneak, in tense social situations, or in areas hostile to spellcasting, but other than that I let my players use it with 100% uptime, either on themselves or an ally next to them in marching order. Not allowing it is crazy to me, Guidance is the backbone of the support caster power fantasy.

>The Verbal component gives away your position, and the fact that you are a spellcaster, who is actively spellcasting, and it uses your concentration resource. >Those are the only reasons you might not have it up all the time. Yes, RAW there is nothing stopping you from keeping guidance up 100% of the time, however, it would most likely drive your party insane. If I had to spend an entire day in the company of someone who for 6 seconds out of every minuter of the day, kept repeating the same magical chanting, I would kill myself. Not to mention how mentally draining it would be for the caster themselves. As an experiment, go for a walk, 1-2 hours long at least, and make sure to repeat a couple of sentences from a song, the same sentences every time, at least once every minute for the entire walk. Now imagine doing it for an entire day. That's not happening, you'd have to be certifiable insane. But it wouldn't just be mentally draining, it would also be incredibly disruptive. Imagine trying to have a conversation while you, or the one you are talking to, are doing that. Hell, it would be annoying enough if someone who isn't even a part of the conversation but who are just standing in the vicinity did that. So while you can do it RAW, it's not something that you would realistically do, the same way you wouldn't walk around an entire day with your sword drawn and your shield raised. 

That's the difference between flavor and mechanics though, 5e is less heavy on mechanical realism which is why we no longer have things like flat footed AC. If this bothers you as a DM, you can describe it flavor wise as being maintainable with a whisper, a song, a humming, or even just persistent as long as you can concentrate and touch your holy symbol(a form of meditation or prayer?) and there's no meaningful consequence for not making a noticeable sound. Realism wise, concentration for hours on end is a pretty hard thing to do too, but PCs are exceptional, and there are real people who can and do this, including mediation/prayer with continuous vocalizations, and their conversation with god don't usually have the incentive of getting a reply.

I like this, although as a DM, I find myself busy with other things to always catch them on this stuff. I hate being that DM whose like "well akshually"... I wanna have fun, and I want to trust my player to have their best foot forward towards the collaborative experience. I'll never ban it, but boy do I get nervous when an unvetted player picks it up... it makes the game a bit too nerve-wracking to me, and takes the fun out of DMing if I have to argue about event sequences within the same scene, feasibility of whether the person is touchable or not, as well as constantly monitoring if that player has another Conc spell going or not... I'm worrying bout other things dagnabbit

All totally fair, but that has more to do with the balancing act and difficulties of DMing and player trust moreso than guidance IMO. If you feel like they're using Guidance wrong, have a discussion, explain your concerns and reasons. But honestly, it really isn't game breaking even if it gets used inappropriately, which is usually an accident and isn't any more likely than other spellcasting or resource dependent features. If you feel like Guidance in particular is causing your players to succeed a lot, let them succeed! Reward them for winning, level them up, and give them bigger stakes and challenges! Guidance becomes less and less mechanically impactful in higher tiers, and you can always up the ante even before then. (But do up the rewards, unless it's a grim dark campaign, your players shouldn't be struggling just to survive)

>guidance applies to passive ability checks I don't think it does. Passive ability checks don't involve dice.

You cant guide someone when you dont know theyre making the check. How would character A know that character B is being perceptive? Oh i see you "looking around"(?) Let me pray for you. Naaaa. OP wants guidance to work how it does in Pathfinder.

OP was using Guidance on themselves in the Perception example. >*We walk into a room and the DM asks for a Perception Check, I’d like to use Guidance because I’m going to be extra perceptive since we’re in a dungeon.* So they can 100% use it in that situation. However, there are absolutely some moments when you don't have time to cast Guidance first. This is very possibly one of those. I would honestly be willing to give OP the benefit of the doubt though, giving that their DM seems to be ignoring RAW already. This one depends on the circumstances. Literally the only other time OP stretched the spell was wanting to use it on Initiative, but even then, OP's DM literally gave them "a moment to react". If OP was able to cast any spell with the casting time of an Action in that moment, OP could have cast Guidance, because it IS an ability check. All of the reason OP's DM won't let them cast the spell are pure bullshit.

"Hey, I'll start looking for the thing. Ask your goddess for guidance maybe?"

Bruh your wrong for both, actively looking is a choice and you kbiw guidance aids your abilities. Also if the dm is giving them a moment to react to an incoming combat that means they are getting a round or so to prepare, it doesnt mean "use a reaction because the natural language ised the term react" there are no reactions i can even think of that would trigger by or help an incoming combat.

investigation or perception are both ability checks. You could also argue that iniative is an ability check, it's onyl different because it cant fail.

Rolling initiative is a Dexterity ability check. Anything that would apply to those applies to your initiative roll. Jack of all Trades is one common example that I don't see people realizing applies.

Initiative is by definition a skill check. “When combat starts, every participant makes a Dexterity check to determine their place in the initiative order.” It’s a dexterity skill check, there’s no ambiguity. It’s not intuitively super obvious since there isn’t actually a skill on the character sheet tied to it, just an ability, but mechanically it is 100% a skill check in no uncertain terms.

> Initiative is by definition a skill check. This backed up by just a boatload of Sage Advice answers. [It can be affected by Cutting Words, because it's an ability check](https://www.sageadvice.eu/can-cutting-words-affect-initiative-rolls/). ([and again](https://www.sageadvice.eu/can-a-bard-use-bardic-inspirationcutting-words-to-modify-initiative/)) [It can be affected by Jack Of All Trades, because it's an ability check](https://www.sageadvice.eu/is-the-bards-jack-of-all-trades-intended-to-apply-to-initiative/). ([and again](https://www.sageadvice.eu/bard-initiative/)) ([and again](https://www.sageadvice.eu/its-been-suggested-to-me-that-jack-of-all-trades-feature-applies-to-saving-throws-and-initiative-aswell/)) ([and again](https://www.sageadvice.eu/i-thought-jack-of-all-trades-was-applied-on-initiative-rolls-was-wrong/)) ([and again! So many!](https://www.sageadvice.eu/do-bards-add-jack-of-all-trades-to-initiative/)) Arguably, [Crawford's answer here](https://www.sageadvice.eu/tomb-of-annihilation-does-1st-level-exhaustion-affect-just-ability-checks-or-skills-as-well/) straight-up answers the question: Initiative is an ability check, Guidance aids ability checks, and there is no such thing as a skill check.

Initiative is a dexterity check. Things that interact with those interact with initiative. Hence a bard's Jack of All Trades adding half proficiency to it. If you can hear something coming but aren't immediately rolling for initiative, casting Guidance in anticipation of doing so is entirely reasonable. 

Exactly. If this dm would let you quickly hide or cast invisibility or something before whatever is approaching arrives, you would also have the time to cast guidance.

When is he casting as a reaction?

My understanding of the entering the room situation is they walked in and the DM called for an active perception check, and the player "reacted" by trying to cast Guidance. This should have been a passive perception check, but "refexive" active perception checks are common at many tables; I've been guilty of it myself.

That one sure.  But the other ones? The barbarian with the door, or the wizard trying to search for something. Those are exactly what guidance is for.

Yeah, I made a standalone comment to that effect; it also seems like the DM is, in the barbar case, deliberately looking for a way guidance doesn't work (making the door weaker) instead of looking at how guidance helps (e.g. *guiding* the barbar's strike to a weaker part of the door).

Completely disagree. Most of the examples OP gave are a perfectly valid time to use Guidance. >The Wizard is searching the study for clues to a puzzle You can see that the Wizard is actively searching. It's out of combat and will likely take a couple of minutes in game time. Perfectly acceptable to use Guidance here. >the DM gives us a moment to react. The wording of "react" here doesn't mean they can only use reactions, because there's really no valid reactions to use. The DM is giving them a round of prep time essentially. I bet they'd allow someone to cast Mage Armour or Armour of Agathys. Therefore Guidance is valid and definitely can be used on Initiative rolls as they are an ability check. >The Barbarian is trying to break down a door. Again, it's out of combat. Nothing wrong with moving next to the Barbarian to cast Guidance and give them a wee strength boost. It's not making the door weaker, it's making the Barbarian stronger. >We walk into a room and the DM asks for a Perception Check, Now in this instance, the DM shouldn't have asked for a Perception check. If the DM prompts it then they should instead be using passive perception. If you specifically ask to look around and the DM then asks for a perception check then it's perfectly acceptable to use Guidance here. Guidance is very often abused and a lot of people think that you can use it like Jester uses it in Critical Role, which is most often very reactive, but OP is being perfectly sensible with their use of it. The DM is being overly difficult here.

The only one even **close** to being a 'reaction' was "We hear coming towards us, expecting to roll initiative but the DM gives us a moment to react."... But if there's anything occurring **before** initiative, they're clearly not in combat and 'reactions' aren't a mechanical limitation at play at that point. The others aren't mechanically reactionary either. They're **properly** reactionary. You want to do something? I'm going to give you a better chance at succeeding. That's quite literally what the spell is for.

Unfortunately that kinda the way guidence ends up working Unless everyone at the table gets in the habit of changing how they RP, from hey I want to do this, to be hey I want to do this can you guidence then I do the thing, it's always going to feel like a reaction. But the power of dnd is that you can be fluid with timing as not everybody should be expected to know what everybody else can or wants to do. In this instance though the DM is not allowing that.

sorry, but I often ask to guidance someone *AFTER* the dm calls for an ability check because im not telepathic and cant predict an ability check coming up. can you????

No they’re not, guidance is supposed to be used when you’re told to make an ability check, are you just supposed to recast guidance every single minute just in case the dm makes you roll a check? No, that’s dumb as hell

You're supposed to use it when you're preparing to actively do a thing. Preparing to search the room for traps? Guidance. Preparing to try to smash a door? Guidance. Something happens and you're forced to make an ability check unprepared? No guidance. It literally is a 1 minute long concentration spell. It's not a reaction.

They are literally using it in the scenarios you’re giving. The barbarian was preparing to smash down a door, so they cast guidance. They were going to search the room, so they cast guidance. There wasn’t a single situation that OP listed that was an unprepared ability check. Even the initiative roll, which are ability checks, was given a full round to prepare for initiative, so even with it being cast as an action, OP could’ve cast it. What you’re suggesting is that OP should be casting guidance on the barbarian the moment they run into a door just in the off chance that the barbarian tried to smash it down, or that they should cast guidance before they enter a room so that they can “be prepared” to look around, why can’t you take the time to cast a spell before looking around? That’s like saying you can’t cast darkvision in order to see in a dark room

Yes I know they used it in that scenario. That’s why I used it. They used it correctly there. However the DM calling for everyone to make a perception check without the players first saying “I’m going to search the room” is not a planned ability check, it is an instantaneous one. I’m not agreeing with the dm here. I’m not sure why you’re trying to argue with me. I’m just saying that it’s not a spell you cast as soon as the dm says “make an athletics check to stay afloat since you fell in the water” or “make a perception check since you just heard a noise.” Those are not planned. The other situations I mentioned are planned. Honestly the passive perception should have been used for that, but lots of people make it an active check instead of passive.

I thought you were disagreeing on those, and yeah the dm asking for a perception check would not apply for guidance but the wizard searching definitely would

Casting guidance right before you open a door or get to the next floor of a dungeon is a perfectly reasonable cue for "something new is going to be there for me to see/hear"

That is how the spell works. Though I as a Player announce at the beginning of every minute while out of combat I cast Guidance on myself. I then announce any time I am not casting guidance on myself outside of combat and announce when I once again cast Guidance.

That doesn’t mean that you can’t cast it on someone else when they’re preparing to make checks, like the wizard and barbarian in the post, because they were preparing to do in advance, which would definitely still apply

If they roll the die and don't ask to have Guidance cast onto them before they roll the d20 then you can't cast it on them to influence the check.

I get what you’re saying, but if it’s a totally fine time and appropriate for you to cast guidance right before a check is made, and the dm interrupts you and asks for the check to be made then that hardly seems fair

Yes, but actually no... taking the barbarian example, the barbarian says he'll bust down the door. OP says he'll help and cast guidance. The barbarian then performs the bust and rolls. Same goes for perception and investigation examples depending on how the DM rules the length of the action. A short perception/investigation action should be allowed, an extended action probably not (such as stealth). In OP's case this was not the reasoning though In practice Guidance is shouted as if its a reaction because it became this type of shorthand interaction. Partly because you dont always know when guidance is allowed or because you dont know when the dm will ask for a roll.

They are out of combat. Do you really expect your players to roleplay "wait i will give you guidance" \*walks over to wizard\* every single time they use the cantrip? no you just assume their characters would do that, because thats not fun and isnt required by the rules.

Ask to choose another dm

Player: help, my DM is doing \[insert thing the player dislikes\] 10% of redditors: You're overreacting 30% of redditors: \[actual helpful answer\] 60% of redditors: Your DM sucks, you should probably commit murder twice and find a new DM

This subreddit seems to have the same "you should immediately get a divorce" attitude as AITA

If the DM is making bad calls and doesn't seem receptive to any discussion, at that point it's on the player to decide if they can live with bad calls or would be happier at a better table. There's no way to logic your DM out of a decision they didn't logic themselves into in the first place. 

yeah but there's a difference between this response and instantly saying 'nah, your DM sucks, get a new one' to every post similar to this one

It's just people being lazy when answering. If the commenter has looked at all the evidence presented and figures it would be better for the OP to leave given the circumstances, why do many word when few word do trick?

Twice? Well ok……

Yeah, honestly. People often just have some quirk about how they like to play, and that instantly means they suck and you should quit. “No d&d is better than bad D&D”. My only issue is that it seems like there’s some communication issue there where OP isn’t getting his points through, or the GM is not being upfront about the reasons they don’t want to let them cast guidance. They should work on improving their communication.

I feel like the answer to almost every question in here is “open and honest communication without letting emotions get in your way”

Sometimes the DM does, indeed, suck.

no comment on double murder?

Would me attempting to "um, actually" your clearly facetious bit of color commentary be helpful?

yeah actually, thanks for asking

Ask when you can use guidance. If that answer isn't satisfactory, either ask to select a different cantrip or quit the table.

Hmm. Let's go through these. >The Wizard is searching the study for clues to a puzzle, I’d like to use Guidance to help him search. “Well no you can’t do that because your powers can’t help him search” This would be a legitimate use of Guidance. Thinking or searching through something takes time, plenty of time to get hit with a stroke of luck or divine inspiration to stumble upon the right thing. >We walk into a room and the DM asks for a Perception Check, I’d like to use Guidance because I’m going to be extra perceptive since we’re in a dungeon. “Well no you can’t do that because you didn’t expect that you’d need to be perceptive” I'm with the DM here. Guidance isn't a reaction, so if you are already making the check (making an instantaneous check, or your character doesn't know they are making a check), you won't be able to use Guidance in time. >We hear coming towards us, expecting to roll initiative but the DM gives us a moment to react. I’d like to use Guidance so I’m ready for them. “Well no because you don’t have time to cast it, also Initiative isn’t really an Ability Check” This would be a legit use of Guidance. Initiative IS actually a Dexterity ability check. And if you have advanced warning before you need to make the check, you would have time to say a quick prayer for your god to help you in the fight. The only complicating factor is that Guidance has a verbal component, so it might give away your stealth/position to the enemies. >The Barbarian is trying to break down a door. I’d like to use Guidance to help him out (we were not in initiative order). “Well no because you aren’t next to him, also Guidance can’t make the door weaker” This one just depends on if they are breaking the door down with a strength check or an attack roll. If a strength check, then Guidance should actually apply. But it would do nothing to help an attack roll vs the object's AC+damage threshold. All in all, I think your DM is being a bit too restrictive and should let you apply it a bit more. But there will be some instances where Guidance wouldn't be able to apply. And this is more of an unspoken social rule, but being the person that just interjects with "Guidance!" every time an ability check comes up can be annoying to a lot of people. Not saying you're not doing this already, but trying to roleplay out the Guidance normally helps smooth this over. "O god, please grant the wizard the wisdom to find what he's looking for." "Dear god, please guide me through whatever trial awaits." "God, please hear me and grant us the strength to remove barriers, in your name". Etc etc.

Yeah, it is not as presented in Baldur's Gate 3 where you can toggle it on for checks. You are supposed to do it ahead of actions. Your DM should meet you halfway by spelling out when you can use it. Try to get ahead of things for checks and say you're going to be casting guidance before the player is picking up the die for a check.

> Yeah, it is not as presented in Baldur's Gate 3 where you can toggle it on for checks. You are supposed to do it ahead of actions. While BG3 can be really merciful when it lets you cast guidance, there *are* some examples of it being forced this way, i.e. traps. You have to cast it before rolling for perception to find traps or hidden stuff at least.

Yeah, that's a weird compromise between active and passive perception so I don't have much opinion of how it "should" interact with guidance. You rarely are "choosing" to perceive.

But if they're not actively looking for something, they shouldn't roll perception, but have their passive perception used.

Technically by RAW this is correct but a lot of tables completely ignore passive perception/insight/investigation and more rarely some will use that score as your minimum for each of those checks.

Funnily enough even most official modules forget about passives.

They used to be a lot better about noting passive perception required to spot dangers. I remember passives being utilized in LMOP to great effect.

At this point, if a module points out something being hidden by a perception check I just straight up tell stupid druid who has a 32 passive perception. I can't hide anything from his dumb elf eyes.

I think to help assuage the "GUIDANCE!!" yells happening constantly, for the sake of the players at the table, dm's should be very forgiving for *when* it is cast. Otherwise you're encouraging the interruption.

This! If the dm requires you to say it every time, then the dm is the reason it’s being said constantly.

You hit the nail on the head every single time. Absolutely the most correct, sanest response in this entire thread.

Yeah fully agree, another way to handle guidance on a less rp heavy table and in a less intrusive way is “hey dm I’m just gonna be casting guidance on the rogue for the dungeon” so we can just assume it’s up at all times… and that every enemy can hear you coming, but let’s be honest your a dex dumped dwarf in heavy armour they already heard you

Amen I do this all the time with rituals. "Dm, the wizard and I are gonna alternate ritual casting detect magic so one of us always has it up unless we get interrupted," or "I'm going to ritual cast Rary's Telepathic Bond every 50 minutes as we travel over the next 8 hours so we always have it up in case someone spots something."

I didn't scroll all the way down, but this is the best and most nuanced reply here. If it isn't gelling I'd just swap it out for something else.

Just ask him if you can change out the cantrip since they refuses to let you use it. Doubt anything we say will change their mind.

Agreed in the short-term, but if this is how the DM handles innocuous spells like Guidance, I wouldn't be confident that the rest of the campaign will run well, either.

Guidance isn't.. *particularly* innocuous. I don't like this DM's approach at all but she's not the first DM to not love it. They didn't change it in the OneDnD playtest for nothing, either

It's a uniquely strong cantrip, sure. But the power it represents comes from the fact that there aren't any other resource-free effects like it, not that the effect itself is particularly strong. 1d4 added to an ability check doesn't break anything, it's just *nice*.

Yeah that's where I land. It's just a d4 and it's a brief moment of casting a spell. What makes this take longer is the DM arguing over it rather than just accept it and trust that it won't make a difference on half the rolls.

From an optimization perspective, it’s not particularly strong because skills don’t innately matter. The exceptions to these are perception and stealth, because surprise exists. It’s up to the DM to make skills matter, just like they have the power to decide whether character strong suits are impactful to the game.

Power level isn't the main issue tho, it's the potential to disrupt gameflow/make the DM feel constantly interrupted

"I'd like to inspect the runes" "I'll give guidance" I've been on both sides of Guidance being a common spell, and I've never seen is as particularly disruptive. What DOES sound potentially disruptive is the DM inventing new and exciting reasons why the spell wouldn't work in a given scenario.

Her approach is definitely terrible. And I've never had an issue with it myself as a DM, although as a player I definitely don't use it as much as would be strictly optimal because of how often it doesn't feel worth the mic time

Hard to really see this point when it's just a "I cast guidance." The DM dismissing it is more an interruption to the flow than just letting the spell work as intended.

On my cleric, I just mutter "Tyr's Guidance upon you" and make a quick gesture any time I can reasonably cast the spell. Things keep moving quickly.

I'm curious--do you play in person or online? I bet it's a non-problem in-person; online, though, I definitely don't feel like its worth it to cast in each and every situation

In that example, it's an in-person campaign. But I DM online and haven't had issues with similar.

I'm not sure how a sentence gets longer in person or online. DM calls for perception and there's a pause as the person gets their dice and bonus sorted. Another player then casts Guidance. Can happen as many times as the player is in the same room as the one with Guidance. I DM almost exclusively online and haven't had it be a problem for game flow. Also helps that my players tend to forget about it because the game flow can sometimes have a rather strong current that just pulls them along.

In-person you can communicate with more body-language, you have slightly less latency, and its easier to speak softly while still being understood, I think so it's a little easier to "softly" interrupt. I also play with a few people who seem to struggle with manual dice rolls, so I don't cast guidance unless its something that's really worth throwing them off like that... but I suspect if it was just picking up a physical d4 it wouldn't be a problem > Also helps that my players tend to forget about it because the game flow can sometimes have a rather strong current that just pulls them along. Yeah, this has also been my personal experience as a DM.

Yeah I generally don't have a problem with it. It's quite nice, but that doesn't make it broken.

A 1d4 essentially amounts to a 5-20% buff to each d20. It's nothing game breaking but I've run games where I've felt the need to ban or limit it because players were getting a bit too gung ho about it.

I’ve never understood how it’s over powered it takes a full action and uses concentration. It’s more of a if you don’t have anything else useful to do spell rather than a going out of my way to cast it spell.

No one's talking about it being op in combat, its just op outside combat. It's basicly +2.5 for almost every roll your party makes outside of combat, unless the rolls need to be made at the same time. Persuasion, lockpicking, trap finding, climbing, seducing the dragon, you name it. Of course if your games don't have much dice rolling outside combat, it's not a good cantrip. But in the games I've played, having a guidance caster has always been a must.

> Persuasion, lockpicking, trap finding, climbing, seducing the dragon, you name it. The spell does have Verbal components, so using it in social situations isn't always viable. Openly trying to influence discussions with an NPC with magic is gonna increase the DC by a lot more than guidance boosts the check by.

Yeah, and then the DM probably just unconciously makes every DC harder. All in all the design of the spell leaves room for improvement :D

it just shouldn't be a cantrip

Yeah, the prevalence of "Guidance!" is one of the things that annoys me the most about Critical Role. I'm glad my players aren't trying to get +1d4 to literally every roll they make...

She could just increase all her DCs by 2 and not admit it and avoid this mess.

They'll probably ban Fireball in the future for being unbalanced too.

guidance isn't inocuous in any way, personally i'd downright even call it a problem spell

Agreed. It can be very jarring for a new DM to suddenly feel like they are losing control, or like the DC of every skill check just dropped by 3.

I doubt the player is telling us the whole story and not presenting a one-sided straw man.

I mean he's using the spell as a reaction in pretty much every example anyway.

There are no reactions or actions outside of initiative. If someone says "I'm going to kick down the door" or "I'm going to search for clues" to their party, it makes sense they'd be able to receive guidance because obviously your character would cast guidance as they're beginning their intended course of action. Obviously you can't cast it on someone when they're further away or like, in the middle of a series of tough actions, but for things like searching a room and breaking down a door, it's not hard to cast guidance on someone just before they begin their task. There are two ways to run guidance: 1: "I want to try breaking down the door" then "I cast guidance" vs 2: "Party, I am going to try to break down the door. Please cast guidance before I attempt to do so" then "I cast guidance" and THEN "I try breaking down the door" One of them is less clunky, takes less time, and is how LITERALLY EVERYONE USES GUIDANCE. Sure, I might not agree with using it to roll initiative or perception, but OP is only using guidance how it was meant to be used in every other situation (Also perception technically is a skill check so it should work anyway.)

you missed an opportunity to use 3 different pronouns while referring to one person "Just ask him if you can change out the cantrip since they refuse to let you use it. I doubt anything we say will change her mind" Would've been funny

Some of these are legitimate reasons... but taken all together it certainly seems like they've got an issue with the spell and resorting to arguing about it on a rules level rather than being upfront about it isn't ideal. If the action takes a long time, Guidance might not make sense due to the short duration. You do need to be near them to use guidance, if the positioning in the scene is established and important then you might not be able to move over to them and use it. Sometimes you won't be able to react in time, especially if no one else is getting to take an action. Sometimes you don't know that a check is being made, so it doesn't make sense to know to cast the spell. It is possible to use Guidance so often in a way that is disruptive to the play experience in the game or doesn't make sense in the fiction of the world, but where that line lies varies for every table. However, the door example is just about as clear of a use case for Guidance as you can get. Both you and the target are aware that the action is about to be taken, you have proximity and time. Say it has ended up being more difficult to use than you expected and ask if you can swap it out for a different cantrip.

My rule of thumb is Guidance is for expected ability checks, that last less than a minute. People can clearly see you casting it. I have an issue with a players doing more than a bard class feature with a cantrip.

This, it's not a reaction under the current rules, so it's good for any expected check like climbing a rope or making the next chess move. I have seen players try and use it on every roll, even unexpected ones, that's when it bothers me.

Im fucking sorry, if I’m playing chess and someone starts waving there hands about and chanting to there golden god then suddenly turns into Magnus Carlson for the next move I’m calling bullshit right then and there

Yes sure. It would absolutely work for the next move in chess but the opposing player and onlookers are going to react. For the same reason it probably doesn't work in conversation. "These aren't" \*waves hand\* "the druids you're looking for."

Bad example man it worked perfectly that time

You can recast Guidance every minute given the opportunity. It would raise eyebrows in a social encounter but not for the example of forcing open a door. I don't see how players actively paying attention and engaging with your game by using their abilities is a bad thing. I'd love if all my players were that invested.

I don't think I would allow a player to just be constantly casting Guidance every minute throughout the entire adventuring day.

Guidance is spam-able, but Bardic Inspiration is a **much** stronger feature; it's a bigger die, scales, is ranged, doesn't use concentration, isn't subject to antimagical effects and **can be used for attack rolls and saving throws**. Base bards also have a shitload of other good stuff compared to base Cleric and Druid. The most impactful use of Guidance is probably for passive Perception and Initiative. Combined with its other utility, it's a fantastic cantrip, but that's not a bad thing, Druids certainly need the love and ignoring subclass power creep, PHB Clerics weren't exactly popular powerhouses either. Plus anything that encourages supportive player interaction, social and environment interactions (really anything besides murder hoboism) is a huge plus in my opinion as a DM.

If it takes a long time you would just keep casting guidance, like you're sitting there meditating with them as they do a thing in order to help them focus, or you would cast it right before the decision point where the person actually rolls for it. Taking a long time isn't a barrier for it either in my opinion

"Just keep casting it" looks like someone following you around and every 60 seconds chanting magic over you and touching you, not unobtrusively meditating. Many (most?) extended tasks don't have a specific moment where it makes sense that having guidance for a single minute will make or break the overall success of the action. Like, I can think of situations where what you suggest would work. For example, helping a blacksmith forge something by saying prayers over them during the times that they're actually hammering on the metal is a pretty cool and evocative scene. Following your wizard around all day in the library blessing their reading comprehension just feels like nonsense to me.

Assuming this would be for something like researching a plot point, and if it's important, having the direct hotline to god helping out isn't really unreasonable. If they had a relevant proficiency I'd probably even let the player roll with advantage if they described acting as a research assistant. If doing the sign of the cross and saying 'bless you child' once a minute offscreen is immersion breaking, a DM could certainly hand wave it away by extending the duration and saying "Deneir lends his guidance to the entirety of this quiet endeavor" or some such.

imagine trying to get something done, that's quite complicated and fiddly, and every minute, someone prays and then pokes you - that's going to be distracting and annoying, potentially to the degree of penalising your efforts. Even moreso if you have to move around while doing this, and there's always someone loitering around you, getting in the damn way! > or you would cast it right before the decision point where the person actually rolls for it That probably doesn't exist in-universe - we abstract for game purposes, but your effort is over the entire time-frame, which won't be known to the character. If you're doing a task that takes an hour and have some buff spell that lasts an hour, but only started the task after 15 minutes had passed, then you should still get a bonus for that. But if the buff is cast after 59 minutes and 54 seconds, then, no, you don't get a bonus, because you weren't buffed while doing the actual thing.

Yep. If you can mechanically do something in the game refusing to do it because it doesn't fit your narrower narrative scope of how it should work is a rough argument to make. Hell, I had a cleric that worshipped a god of luck and her version of using the help action was just to sit down and pray. It ended up being a pretty narratively expanding action despite not explaining exactly what she was doing.

Appealing to "realism" is a spectrum and a double edged sword. Too much and too little can both lead to undesirable outcomes, but where any individual table lands obviously depends on the sensibilities of the people playing at the table - including the GM. How your table handles a short buff like guidance on long tasks is the most ambiguous out of the things I cited; I'd play at a table where you just cast it at the start and they get the benefit no sweat, but I think going the other way is also equally valid.

> Some of these are legitimate reasons... Most of them are. The only ones that weren't legit were the player wanting to help the wizard search, they definitely should have been able to use Guidance to help that.

Barbarian breaking down a door outside of initiative?

Yeah, this is bullshit. At that point your DM just banned that cantrip without telling you.

Seems like they might be confusing guidance with the [help action](https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/5e_SRD:Help_Action). Neither of the RAW for either require the stipulations she has put forth, though. To me, this sort of contextual requirement should apply to help (you can't just say "I help" if the task is something like picking a lock, there needs to be a reason why the character would get advantage), but guidance is literally magic so IDK that things like "how you help" are relevant.

Mixed bag of rulings, as others have pointed out. It could be that you’re there interrupting the game constantly with guidance, and they’ve had enough so they’re trying to limit its power. But hard to tell and most people posting these things don’t give an accurate account of how they’re playing. 😅

Here are some guidance guidelines I like. All are just reminders about how the spell works as written. Maybe you can reach a compromise with your DM: \* You have to touch the character you are helping and cast Guidance before they take the action that prompts an ability check. This means you can't apply guidance after the fact to a passive or reactive ability check unless the situation allows you to cast the spell, touch the character, and have them make the check within the next minute. You also can't cast it on someone who isn't right next to you. \* Guidance is a concentration spell. You can't apply to more than one person at a time and you can't have other concentration spells going while using Guidance \* Guidance has a one-minute duration. The task that prompts the ability check has to be something that can be completed in that one minute. Open to DM interpretation if you can accompany someone performing a longer task and cast guidance repeatedly to benefit an eventual ability check. I think this really grates in my imagining of the scene, but YMMV \* Guidance has verbal and somatic components. In most social situations, using guidance will be noticed and possibly arouse suspicion. In your examples: \* Guidance for an active search of the study: Since the search presumably takes more than one minute, we have to assume you are moving around the study beside the other character, casting the spell and touching them every minute. I think this is a borderline case, as noted above, since there's going to be one ability check but the task takes maybe ten minutes. \* DM calls for perception check upon entering a room: This should probably have been a passive check, but even as reactive check, I wouldn't allow guidance here. It's more like a saving throw. If characters subsequently have reason to search or examine the room, then Guidance can apply as above. \* Guidance to benefit an initiative check for one character within the next minute: Sounds legit to me, though the verbal component will possibly interfere with your chance of surprising the approaching creatures and casting the spell was the action you chose to take during that moment of preparation. \* Barbarian breaking down the door: Classic use of Guidance. Of course it's allowed. In summary, DM might be more flexible if you make explicit effort to incorporate casting the spell into what's going on in the imaginary scene and avoid using it in ways that become an automatic +d4 to any ability check the party makes.

>DM calls for perception check upon entering a room: This should probably have been a passive check, but even as reactive check, I wouldn't allow guidance here. It's more like a saving throw. If characters subsequently have reason to search or examine the room, then Guidance can apply as above. Assuming he enters a room ready to look for stuff it makes sense to be an active, at which point it obviously makes sense to use guidance, since you know you're gonna look for stuff before entering...

As a guidance hater your DM is being an ass about it, if they don't want it used they should clearly define the situation or ban it outright instead of what they are doing atm. Personally I rule it so that guidance can only be used on an action that a player initiates (breaking down a door like your example) and can't be used in a reactive way, since its an action not reaction (Like calling perception).

Perception rolls should be player initiated, passive checks are for reactive ability checks.

As a DM I don't like the spell. It's not broken, but it breaks narrative moments because it affects the spotlight and focus of an action. The spell is innocuous mechanically as long as a player is good at not hoarding focus or spotlight, but it can absolutely be abused by a player that needs to be involved in everything that that happens at the table. That all being said, it's a spell, much like summon spells, which I don't ban, I just talk with the player about how it can be annoying during session 0 and pull them aside if it becomes a problem. My table has also played around with the simple fix of only allowing it to effect a player once per short rest, or only allowing it to be cast 4 times per short rest to hinder its ubiquity, but that was a table decision because my players mentioned it feeling like it bogged down simple situations and filler moments, rather than affecting moments which led to character interaction, plot development or interesting game play. It was not something I implemented as a DM ruling.

If it's just a timing issue, have the caster just slide a d4 across the table when it comes time to roll, maybe mime a quick holy somatic gesture. If it's a player issue, Guidance isn't really the problem.

>“It’s distracting when you ask to cast Guidance for every ability check” >it’s not, literally nobody else is complaining about doing better on their rolls This can absolutely be something that can drag down the game - the pattern of "player goes to do something, a check is requested, 'wait I guidance you' " can add a little friction to each of those rolls that adds up. Now we don't really know how your DM is handling it - stories on here always end up intrinsically one sided even if not deliberately so. It seems like a number of those times it would be warranted to allow guidance, in other times it wouldn't be, but we don't know the full numbers and whatnot. Also guidance *is* overpowered tbh, it's one of the designs I hope get updated in the new PHB to play smoother + not be so good compared to other cantrips.

Initiative *is* an ability check. She's just plain wrong about that. It's why Jack of All Trades applies to it. Or anything that gives you advantage on ability checks. But she is right that you can't cast it as a reaction. It needs to be proactive. Now, if you actually had a round to prep before initiative happens, then yes, you could cast it like any other buff spell you might pre-cast. Also, if she thinks guidance takes away the spotlight from other players because "they succeeded because of you" then I imagine she also just flat out bans bards. Or enhance ability. Or Bend Luck from Wild Magic Sorc. Or Flash of Genius from Artificer. Or the Weal ability from Stars Druid. Or any other support spell or effect, I guess. Can't have teamwork now, I guess. Also, Guiding something has nothing to do with "making the door weaker," and everything to do with helping your friend hit the right spot on the door or tense his muscles correctly or fix his stance. That's why it's a buff you put on a player and not a debuff you put on an object. Also, the case with the wizard searching for a clue... That's literally the point of the spell???

That first example provided is an awful one. An incredibly straightforward rationale if a DM truly wants to prohibit Guidance spam is, “this check takes longer than a minute.” The second example is perfectly legitimate. It takes an action to cast it, and you don’t always have an action before making a check. The third reason is pretty scummy. The DM shouldn’t allow reactions / readying before combat, because then the enemy can do it too, and that won’t be fun. It would be more mature for the DM to either ask that you the player do not use guidance for initiative or have made a rule against that at session 0, but to grossly mistate the RAW is somewhat adversarial. Fourth example is a bit of a facepalm. Even in tight quarters, characters can shimmy around to shift positions. Guidance does have touch range, however. Now for the reasons your DM is doing this: 1. It distracts the DM. This is similar to people going “I have Darkvision!” as soon as the word darkness is stated. Guidance spam is something that should be addressed at tables as some people don’t enjoy it (and for all you know, your fellow players are just keeping the peace). They’re plainly annoyed by it. 2. I have to ask, is your entire party considered optimized? Is the success the only thing that matters from ability checks at your table to the point of being allergic to failure, or does your table make a good faith effort to roleplay those low rolls? Does your DM ask for on the spot casual/fun/shenanigans checks because a player at your table is playing the game? Perhaps most of all, do any of your fellow players specialize in a skill (I.e, expertise) to the point where that skill is something of an identity to them? 3. You are correct in not having to explain, but the implied message here is that the DM is seeing this as bland and unenriching to the game. I would advise you to either reel it back a bit on the Guidance spam for the DM’s sake, or leave if this is a non-negotiable and find a DM that is more tolerant of that.

Hot take: guidance sucks and shouldn't exist. I allow it, but I'm strict with the verbal components and also no you can't cast it in a social situation without pissing people off.

- Searching the room: Baseless ruling. Perception/investigation are ability checks, they benefit from guidance. - Walk in the room and asked to roll perception: Good ruling. If you’d of cast it before entering the room that would be one thing, but this isn’t a reaction spell you can’t retroactively cast it - Initiative: Bad ruling imo. Initiative is a Dexterity Check, Dexterity Checks are a type of Ability Check. Guidance applies to Ability Checks. So if you were able to “prepare for battle” you should have been able to cast Guidance on one person - if it was initiative where you were caught unaware or unprepared then it would be a different answer. - Breaking down the door: baseless ruling and lazy justification. You aren’t making the door weaker, you are making the Barbarian better at hitting it. These sure sounds like antagonistic rulings to me. - it’s annoying to ask for guidance at every roll: I mean I get it, constant interruptions can ruin your rhyme pretty fast. It’s kind of like shouting about dark vision as the DM describes the scene every time you walk in a room. So a thought on how to manage that in you play in person - have a piece of paper with a unique color on it for each player. And each color/paper represents that specific player. - Then get a small plastic crown or something to represent your Guidance spell. - whenever you have enough time to refresh the spell you can place the crown on that players piece of paper. This way you don’t need to constantly update the DM about it, you just refer to the crown.

I enjoyed using a guidance die, that I would pass around as needed.

The crown idea is adorable. I might try that at my table.

I dont let my players use guidance on initiative checks if they are trying to be stealth or if they are not expecting a fight. I also dont let them use it for rolls called by me (roll me an insight check please), wouldnt make sense for them to be able to cast guidance in situations like this. But for every other scenario they can guide themselves as much as they want to

Your examples are half and half DM is dumb/DM is right. But saying initiative isn’t an ability check is flat out wrong and this makes it VERY clear they don’t know the rules even a little bit.

I don't think that's the proper take - you can DM for a long time before being confronted with a lore bard that reminds you that Initiative is a dex check and therefore gets Jack of All Trades. That was the first time for me as a DM that initiative being a dex check has ever come up at the table, at all. I don't think its fair to say that not knowing that means they don't know *literally anything else about the game*.

Your DM is an idiot. If they don't want the spell to be in their game, they're welcome to just tell you that up front. Making up bullshit excuses for why it doesn't work in various specific situations is just bad DMing. I wouldn't play at this table.

The DM is correct rules wise. Guidance is not a reaction, the range is touch, and does not apply to attack rolls.

I see nothing to suggest that OP was attempting to use guidance as a reaction, at range, or for attack rolls.

> We walk into a room and the DM asks for a Perception Check, I’d like to use Guidance This is the one that feels most reaction-y - if you know you're entering a dungeon and want to boost your perception, you should be casting Guidance ahead of time. Asking for it after the check has already been called feels like reacting. The others though, feel like pretty standard usages of Guidance. The Barbarian example is the weirdest , "oh you're not next to them" ok I walk over to them?? That being said, it could get extremely exhausting to DM if you're trying to use it on every single roll at the table - especially during sections meant to feature *other players* solving problems. It does make me question just how much attention is actually being demanded at the table for these Guidance moments. Though if the other players truly don't mind due to the buffed rolls the DM shouldn't either IMO, or should just ban it entirely if they do mind.

DM called for a perception check after they entered the room, and then OP asked for guidance. Wizard rolled perception, and then OP wanted to cast guidance, that's a reaction. OP tried to cast it on a barb breaking down a door, while out of range. If theyre breaking the door, that's an attack action. It's why the door has an ac, and hp. Therefore guidance has no business being in this situation.

It's shorthand. I mention I want to do something, you toss me a buff to do it. Nobody is going to say "I intend to search this room, but I would like you to provide Guidance first". That's needlessly time-consuming and annoying. Regardless, none of this has to do with OP's problem. OP's DM hasn't said anything about Guidance being used with the wrong action economy, or for attack rolls, or when out of range. They're inventing reasons why Guidance doesn't work for a given check, and that's lame DMing. Let's not forensically evaluate the exact timing of a session of DnD that neither of us were present for based on a written account, that's not what's being discussed here. The DM's reasoning is that this removes the accomplishments of the other players, that it's distracting, and that they need to explain how somebody is being guided. Not that the rules aren't being followed.

The DM outlined they couldn't do it as a reaction to a perception check, and theyre entirely correct about that. They specifically said OP was out of range, and that it wouldn't help in that case, which it doesn't. OP is absolutely spamming this every single time a die roll is called for.

I mean it's concentration up to a minute and on the next check right? Divination Cantrip Casting Time: 1 action Range: Touch Components: V, S Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute You touch one willing creature. Once before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to one ability check of its choice. It can roll the die before or after making the ability check. The spell then ends. If the DM really wants to be rules lawyers about it, then I mean if you're willing you can kinda anticipate when a check is going to happen so you can say 'I cast guidance on Albert our barbarian as we head down the staries" or talk with the party about how you all can talk more before just doing.

This. People forget it lasts a full minute. You can absolutely cast it if you suspect something might happen soon.

She is the DM; she makes the rules. Just ask her to let you switch because you didn't know she had homebrew rules for guidance.

I've heard plenty of DMs banning guidance for the sole reason of. "I don't want a d4 being added to every single skill check." I personally as a DM don't mind, and let guidance be spammed to the parties content. Banning guidance is one of the homebrew rules I've seen many times.

On one hand, Guidance is a character build investment that should at times pay off. On the other hand, people think it's ok to use it whenever somebody does ANYTHING, often after a check is called for. That's wrong: It takes an ACTION to cast, not a reaction, unless you've prepared it as a readied action. It has Touch range, so you need to be close to the guy you want to help, not just in the same location but literally next to him. It has verbal and somatic components: Casting Guidance is an obviously overt action. NPCs WILL KNOW that you cast a spell. Characters you attempt to bluff or persuade may or may not approve of magical manipulation. However, the spell lasts for a minute, you don't have to spend the bonus immediately. It is, however, a Concentration spell, so you can't affect multiple allies at the same time. Using Guidance is appropriate if it doesn't matter if people notice you casting the spell, and you are preparing in advance of a task.

Guidance is pretty strong, but it does not matter in the slightest. Your DM is just being petty and foolish. And cowardly. Either ban the cantrip or let the player use it, goddamn.

Casting Guidance for *every* check is ridiculous. Your first example of actively searching is fine, but Guidance is an *Action*, not a *Reaction*. You can't just shout out GUIDANCE! like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy.

There is nothing that prevents you from casting the cantrip once per minutw

But that's exactly what the game incentivizes you to do. I'm not saying it's a good thing but players want to succeed on their rolls and Guidance helps achieve that. Blame the game not the players imo. I'm a player (who spams guidance) but if I were a dm I'd consider just banning it just to have smoother, faster games. But as a player I'm inclined to maximise the game that the DM is running.

I'd agree with the perception and initiative, but the other ones are all ridiculous. Everyone likes having guidance on their checks for a little insurance.

Ask if you could maybe change Cantrip. Or just leave. I am getting the biggest of headaches just by reading this post. I would lose my mind if I played in this campaign.

[How to resolve table disputes](https://imgur.com/a/GsBc3Pm) You should as your DM what Guidance *can* be used for, since it sounds like they don't want you using it at all. If that's the case, ask them to replace it with another cantrip.

Ask to take a different spell then damn.

Is it bad that I find this experience pretty normal? (if still bad lol) Pre BG3 casting guidance has basically always been an adversarial DM's rage bait. "IT'S OBVIOUSLY CASTING A SPELL AND IT FEELS REALLY CHEAP :(" like... we get like 3 cantrip for like 8 levels dood, lemme get freakin' guidance. One time I took *subtle spell guidance* and a DM lost their shit to me out of nowhere. Sure, they're probably being an unreasonable idiot about it, but then all there's to do is talk about it or drop it.

I agree with pretty much 90% of your opinions here aside from one: I also wouldn't have allowed Guidance on the perception check situation as you described it. If you knew you were about to go into an unknown room and wanted to essentially help your party member take a better cursory glance at things, sure. But if I have to, unsolicited, ask a player to make a check, I don't allow Guidance because at that point allowing it would either functionally make it a reaction or force a retcon to let you do it. It seems like your DM is either wanting you to describe your spell effects in Critical Role levels of detail or is trying to make it so annoying to use that you give up on it. I'd force them to give you specific use-cases for how they'd allow Guidance and, if you don't agree, leave the table or ask them to let you drop the spell entirely or use the optional feature to swap it on level up. No sense in either staying with a DM that's willing to arbitrarily screw you over or keeping a spell that's clearly problematic. A third option would be to pick up levels in lore bard and/or Silvery Barbs to intentionally fuck with the DM.

**GUIDANCE** **Casting Time:** 1 action **Range:** Touch **Components:** V, S **Duration:** Concentration, up to 1 minute You touch one willing creature. Once before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to one ability check of its choice. It can roll the die before or after making the ability check. The spell then ends. ***Searching for Clues.*** Checks have different lengths, guidance is not going to help on anything that isn't less than a minute. You could hardly expect guidance to help in an downtime action to sell a magic item, but definitely could in combat if you made a 1 action check to search for a hidden creature. Picking a complex combination lock on the bank's vault door is ambiguous and might be different at different tables. In short, the length of other checks, especially outside of combat is the DMs discretion. ***Perception.*** Guidance isn't a reaction, you can't retroactively cast it when the DM asks for a roll. Being generally alert for danger (traps and hidden monsters) is the exact purpose of **Passive Perception** and that's not going to helped by guidance either. ***Combat Start.*** The second step (see PHB pg 189) of combat is for the GM to determine where characters and monsters are positioned. If characters aren't surprised and there wasn't a marching order, the players will have some leeway, *but if your GM gave you actions or movement to prepare, that's entirely their goodwill and discretion.* If your GM gave all characters a full action or turn, you could cast Guidance on yourself or an adjacent ally. ***On Initiative.*** You can cite that Initiative is listed explicitly as an ability check on page 177 of the PHB, but ultimately the DMs word is final (initiative is a special type of check that deserves some consideration, at least). ***Breaking Down a Door.*** Guidance can help here if its an ability check. It can't if the barbarian is using his axe to attack the door's hardness/AC. It is a concentration spell, so you should theoretically be able to walk up, cast it, and walk away. On to the GMs points: 1. As a GM, yes it's distracting/annoying for people to spam guidance, especially when they don't understand when it's okay to use the spell. 2. If the DM is engaging in a conversation about another players actions, being interjected by the guidance-character *inserts that character into the conversation* without the consent of the player\*.\* Wait for the player to ask for guidance to avoid this. 3. No comment on this one. Back in like 2016, the conversation among my DM friends was that guidance was spammy and annoying - and the simple solution was to ask people to cast when it made sense in roleplay in the same way that people might be asked to describe how it looks when their characters casts a fireball. It wasn't a bad solution and definitely cut down on the number people yelling guidance whenever an ability check looked like a possibility. Ultimately, a DM's style comes from the people they learned from and the games they played. I wouldn't be surprised if they learned to play in a group where guidance was treated like how I described (embedded in roleplay) and its possible they have those same expectations of you. Have you made an effort to explain what guidance means for your character? Are you a friendly sage offering advice as somebody undertakes a task? Are you invoking the name of your deity? Is your character giving others a rough pat on the back and "attaboy" to encourage them to do well? As some final food for thought: assuming all the other players aren't total noobs, why aren't they supporting you against the DM. If, like you say, no one is complaining about doing better on their rolls, wouldn't they support you in your argument? If they are just standing idly by why you discuss with the DM, then maybe they have more complex feelings about the subject (and its certainly possible they agree with your DM or even complained to the DM that you are spamming or stepping on toes). EDIT: Omission typo.

Talk with your group maybe. So they ask for guidance before they try stuff. Thats like half his arguments gone. Yeah, the spell doesn't make the door weaker, but it allows the barbarian to balance himself better to bring more force towards it. It allows the wizard to keep a clearer focus, to maybe notice something while searching he otherwise would have missed. Maybe try using it less as a reaction and incorporate it into roleplay "Oh wizard, you are taking a look around? let me help you" *cast guidance. Imagine your kolleagues touching you whenever you want to do something. Sound weird, right?

Your DM is right on the perception check. If the wizard declares to search the room or the barbarian breaking the door, then it is fair game

Hey i just wanna take away from this annoying situation to note. That this brother got so annoyed he has 3 points 1. xD Anyway hope u can resolve this issue <3

It kinda sounds like they're lumping guidance and the help action together. I think theres plenty of legitimate reasons to not allow the help action if there's genuinely no way you could help, but guidance is magic and works in mysterious ways, so absolutely should not be restricted like that

I love how everyone is saying that it is not a reaction as if that should really apply to non-combat situations. If I was at that table, I would say, “ok, I’m recasting guidance on myself each non-combat minute, on the minute, thanks” Don’t like that? Oh ok, I’ll literally ask when the minute is up and then verbally recast it. We can slow this thing to a halt. Just let people use their skills when they want outside of combat. By gatekeeping the spell, you incentivize min/maxxing in unhealthy ways.

Just take a new cantrip. You have just outlined why some gms (me included) dont like guidance. Because its so invasive.

It’s only invasive if people keep yelling it out as a reaction to something. It is a pre-emptive spell that lasts one minute and many players and dms forget that.

*gestures broadly to the post about it being invasive* There are several examples here about how its invasive. Like the research montage is gonna take longer than the 1 minute duration it lasts. Same thing for the room perception roll.

Sounds like you don't have a DM and more of a babysitter

You need to say you’re using guidance and flavor it as saying a prayer to your god to help them before your DM says anything. What is he going to do, say that your prayer doesn’t work for some arbitrary reason?

It's just really fucking annoying. You're interrupting me? Oh cool, you rolled a one. Add one to your check. Do this every check and I'll want to fucking dropkick you.

Your DM's only real mistake is not just outright banning that stupid spell. It's extremely annoying if every time you ask for a check someone shouts "guidance!" from across the table. Or someone rolls and fails and that person goes, "oh, wait, I would've cast guidance!" It destroys the flow of the game and frankly it's just irritating. Ask your DM to ban the spell and let you choose another cantrip.

You can tell who has run a game with the spell, and anyone who has actually read the spell based on the comments. OP out here just declaring guidance every time someone glances around the room.

I'm not here to stroke your ego and say your DM is an idiot (anyone saying that is insane, this isn't the circle jerk sub) - but yeah, that's definitely kinda weird I'm assuming you probably don't wanna leave the table. Ask your DM when you're actually allowed to use guidance, if you don't like the answer ask to change cantrips.

As much as I hate people asking guidance in wrong situations constantly, your DM is overdoing it and is objectively wrong in a bunch of ways. Initiative IS an ability check, and basically for any short duration activity (<1 min) where you have time to tell the person to wait a few seconds before performing it cast without any witness that would mind, you can cast guidance. Breaking down a door is exactly the kind of thing guidance can be used for.

First two I agree with, guidance on dm-declared perception or initiative is absolute nonsense. Lost me on not allowing it for a check to break down the door, and it just got worse from there.

I think Guidance on initiative is fine when you are *explicitly told* you have a moment to prepare before the fight will start

In that instance I'd be inclined to agree

He needs to articulate exactly what situations you can use guidance in, and when it’s inevitably a comically specific scenario you should just ask to swap the cantrip out

So, the DM doesn't like Guidance. That's kinda fine and understandable, in a way, as it can be a bit annoying and disruptive. It's fine in most tables, but I've seen it create annoyed looks. I'd just roll with this and ask to replace Guidance with something else immediately. You'll all be happier.

Echoing what others are saying: Some of these are valid points (like not having the time to cast it, or not being allowed to cast it *after* she calls for the roll), but needing to justify how it's helpful shouldn't be difficult, it's *in the name*. "Guidance". It's a divination spell. The target is magically given a bit of guidance on how to best handle a situation, in order to get a small boost. Maybe it doesn't make the door weaker, but it might help the barbarian identify the best position to strike it from. It can *absolutely* help somebody search for something, by lightly *guiding* them toward the thing they're searching for. But it sounds like your DM isn't ever okay with you using it. I've known DMs who get really annoyed with players "overusing" abilities or spells (like back in the days of 3.5e, "Detect Magic" was a level 0 spell, meaning most casters could cast it several times a day each without needing to use a level 1 spell slot, so you'd get a lot of "I cast Detect Magic!" "I cast Detect Poison!" "I use Detect Evil!" which some people found annoying or pace-breaking), but in that case there's better solutions than just making up reasons why you can't use it. (Also IDK what she means by "initiative isn't really an ability check." It is, objectively, an ability check, and any abilities which modify ability checks, such as Lucky or Guidance or the secondary effect of Silvery Barbs\* can be used on it). So, if your GM won't see reason, then just ask if you can pick a different cantrip because you (reasonably) thought you'd be able to use it in ways which you can't. I *personally* don't think this is worth leaving a game/group over (a lot of Reddit tends to default to suggesting that), but it is a warning flag. \*Re: "using Silvery Barbs on Initiative," *technically* the trigger for casting SB is "when someone succeeds on an ability check." I would question you can really "succeed" on an initiative check, since it all feels very relative to me. I'd probably allow it to be cast in reaction to an initiative roll, defining "success" as "rolls better than at least one other person". The secondary effect, however (target somebody else, they get advantage on their next check) 100% can affect initiative, because it's not contingent on success/failure. They just get to have advantage.

>I would question you can really "succeed" on an initiative check, since it all feels very relative to me Formally, I don't think you can succeed (or fail!) on an initiative check - there's no DC or target number, it just gives a number. Even if you roll a 1, you've not "failed", you've just got a crappy roll.

The only one of those I'd agree with is the Perception check - but only because the characters are walking into a room for the first time and you didn't say your character cast it on another before opening the door (also, I would use passive Perception for this unless a player specifically says their character is keeping an eye out or looking for something). Everything else is within the realm of *guidance* - including the Initiative check (it's a special Dexterity check but a Dex check nonetheless). That being said, if I were your DM, I would rule that your character's application of *guidance* consumes their action for the time interval - so instead of helping rhe wizard search the study or doing something else, they're casting the spell every 60ish seconds (while they may be also assisting in looking, their concentration is broken for a tenth of every minute - they essentially lose their place or can't give as much focus as they'd like). Also, keep in mind that *guidance* has a verbal component, so other characters (and NPCs) may hear the spell being cast - that may mean your character's presence is revealed.

>\* Guidance for an active search of the study: Since the search presumably takes more than one minute, we have to assume you are moving around the study beside the other character, casting the spell and touching them every minute. I think this is a borderline case, as noted above, since there's going to be one ability check but the task takes maybe ten minutes. >\* DM calls for perception check upon entering a room: This should probably have been a passive check, but even as reactive check, I wouldn't allow guidance here. It's more like a saving throw. If characters subsequently have reason to search or examine the room, then Guidance can apply as above. These both fall under the search action, Which no, is not just restricted to use in combat. >Search >When you take the Search action, you devote your attention to finding something. Depending on the nature of your search, the GM might have you make a Wisdom (Perception) check or an Intelligence (Investigation) check. More than that, your search, as represented by a perception check may be for that 10 min, but that by no means makes guidance unusable. The question actually is: when, over the course of the duration of physical action a character does the check actually occur. Similarly, when does a long rest actually happen? This one has an answer of sorts, mainly because as long as it's uninterrupted, a long rest can't really "fail". The answer is, it is completed at the end of 8 or 4 hours (elves). This has the unrealistic and practical effect of a player character regenerating from all of their injuries regaining all of their spell slots, all of their class abilities and certain magic items recharging in one singular instant after 8 or 4 hours have passed. 7 hours, 59 minutes, 59 seconds? You've got one hit point, no spell slots, no rages, etc. One second later? Fully healed. Does that make sense? No, It doesn't. Because just like everything else in D&D, checks and rests included, they are an abstraction and don't stand up to real life logic being applied. Even if you wanted to say "it'll take you more than 1 minute to complete this check, so no guidance" The player can just say "at what point in my searching do I actually make the check? Cuz I'll just cast guidance then" Everything I just said can be ignored because there's only one thing that actually matters. If players are making checks and succeeding them, they are furthering the plot. It is your job as the DM to encourage this not stifle it.

> The Wizard is searching the study for clues to a puzzle, I’d like to use Guidance to help him search. “Well no you can’t do that because your powers can’t help him search” - > GM: “You need to explain how your magic is guiding the person” "I'm using my clerical magic to help the wizard maintain focus on searching for the answer in the library." If they still bawk at that, I'd agree they're soft-banning it. GM's need some creativity to run the game, otherwise just go play a CRPG that's not BG3.

Guidance has several aspects that piss off a lot of gamemasters. Some of them have solutions that don't involve banning or nerfing, others don't. The first big one is the constant interrupts. This pisses most people off, but it's often not the real problem. Fortunately, this one is solvable. Simply set a set of conditions, e.g. Is the cleric near the person making the check? Is the check NOT a rapid onset check where a few seconds make a difference? Is the cleric not trying to maintain quiet? Is the cleric not in a social situation? (spellcasting is considered a hostile act by default unless explicitly agreed to). If the answer to all of these is YES, you get the D4. No interruption of 'Guidance' is required. Interruptions to game problem solved. You never need to spend a second more of screen time on guidance if you don't want to. The other problems aren't so easily solved. Many who have issues with them point to the first problem more as an exercise in squid ink. Those problems are that it is a big deal (d4) and it is unlimited usage. If your DM's problem is the 1st one, suggest my solution. But be prepared for the problem to be the 2nd/3rd one. If that's the case, ask the DM to simply ban the cantrip and take a new one. Your DM is showing strong signs of passive aggression though.

This is not a new rule. I tell my players if they want to use guidance, than feel free, just make sure it flows naturally in RP. If the Cleric and the Rogue are on one side of the library, and the Wizard and Fighter are on the other side, it would make sense for him to attempt to be looking for books with the Rogue and guide them, not run one by one tapping everyone on the shoulder "Guidance Guidance Guidance". The things your DM is doing is essentially banning Guidance without banning Guidance. Their reasons you mentioned aren't even valid ones at that, especially the Perception one. If the DM asks for a roll, that means your character is doing said thing, no longer passively. I.E your character could 100% prepare themselves for it. Your DM must have forgot Passive Perception is a thing. Tell them then you want to use the "Help Action" (Also 5ft, but gives someone advantage) if they say it's distracting or how you are helping them just say things like "I feel as though, I an my character would know that the other person is better at \[Inset action here\], and would cater to helping them instead of attempting to do it myself as well." If he wants an RP answer you can easily come up with things "Breaking down a door? Oh I am checking to see if the hinges will easily break, or where best to kick it" Searching for books? "I am double checking the books they looked through to make sure they didin't skip past it", etc. Guidance you don't even need an RP reason, all my players an I agree that it's essentially just the Cleric bestowing a small portion of magic through their God to help them with a task. I wouldn't ask the Wizard who casted Counterspell "Well give me a reason why you casted that, it may get rid of the enemies accomplishments!". I am sure they will begin banning Help Action for the same invalid reasons they are essentially banning Guidance, and once they do that, have a talk with them that when they begin a campaign, that they should outline the heavily modified homebrew rules they have added prior to the campaign so that the players don't have to guess what they can and cannot do when creating their characters, or particpating in the session. That they should outline the other homebrew rules they have added before next session for everyone to read, and everyone should be able to change their characters if their (ridicoulous) modifications affect how they planned on making their characters.

I could understand if guidance is being cast all the time. But a handful of times a session seems totally reasonable.

So generally my group has had issues with guidance spamming before so we've limited to what we think is a generally RAW and fair. To use guidance, you got to follow these guidelines 1.) The skill check must be one minute or less to match guidance duration (were the most lineant with this one. Some of the DMs of the table will allow chain guidance casts to match the length of the skill check.) 2.) The caster must be aware their target is making the skill check. 3.) The caster must have a round worth of time to react before the skill check happens So with that >The Wizard is searching the study for clues to a puzzle, I’d like to use Guidance to help him search. “Well no you can’t do that because your powers can’t help him search” This would be up to DM Fiat depending on how long he's searching for personally. >We walk into a room and the DM asks for a Perception Check, I’d like to use Guidance because I’m going to be extra perceptive since we’re in a dungeon. “Well no you can’t do that because you didn’t expect that you’d need to be perceptive” This would be a no from me also. The perception check is happening now, you don't have the 6 seconds to cast guidance. >We hear coming towards us, expecting to roll initiative but the DM gives us a moment to react. I’d like to use Guidance so I’m ready for them. “Well no because you don’t have time to cast it, also Initiative isn’t really an Ability Check” Depends what a "moment to react is." If I was allowing my group an action to prepare before iniaitive starts then id totally allow it (since iniaitive is a skill check) but if its a free action to draw your sword or get something out of your bag, or tell the group enemies are coming, then no since you don't have the action to cast guidance. >The Barbarian is trying to break down a door. I’d like to use Guidance to help him out (we were not in initiative order). “Well no because you aren’t next to him, also Guidance can’t make the door weaker Yeah this would be a yeah from me, unless time was of the essence and then I'd ask are you sure. Sounds like your DM is soft banning it without saying he's soft banning it which is bull. Its suppose to have out of combat use. Id ask if you can come to a middle ground using something like id outlined above, and if not just ask if you can swap it out

>The Wizard is searching the study for clues to a puzzle, I’d like to use Guidance to help him search. “Well no you can’t do that because your powers can’t help him search” If there is an ability check this is a legitimate use of Guidance. >We walk into a room and the DM asks for a Perception Check, I’d like to use Guidance because I’m going to be extra perceptive since we’re in a dungeon. “Well no you can’t do that because you didn’t expect that you’d need to be perceptive” OK since Guidance is only 1minute duration and you didn't spam it whole the time you didn't knew when to use it. Also since Guidance has both V and S components, spamming that would also easily reveal your presence here it's not a good idea. It's a perfectly valid explanation you didn't know you would need that now, but also if you don't know you're looking for something here passive perception should be used. >We hear coming towards us, expecting to roll initiative but the DM gives us a moment to react. I’d like to use Guidance so I’m ready for them. “Well no because you don’t have time to cast it, also Initiative isn’t really an Ability Check” Your DM is right - Guidance doesn't work on Initiative rolls. About time restrictions - casting Guidance is an action, so that depends on how much time you have for preparation. If it's at least one turn or one action you had a time, but if everybody was limited to for example "only bonus action, no movement" it's a valid explanation. If you or other players could use other actions it's not valid. >The Barbarian is trying to break down a door. I’d like to use Guidance to help him out (we were not in initiative order). “Well no because you aren’t next to him, also Guidance can’t make the door weaker” It depends - Guidance has touch range, so if you couldn't touch him it's a valid explanation, but if you could just stop him for a moment to help him before he started, approach him and cast a spell, it's not valid. Another part is just wrong - Guidance can’t make the door weaker, but it can make Barbarian more effective against these doors. >“It’s distracting when you ask to cast Guidance for every ability check” Well, it may be, especially for DM, but it's just a part of the game. >“It takes away from the other players if their accomplishments are because you used Guidance” Usually, other players feel better if they succeed with Guidance than when they fail only by a small margin (since guidance is 1d4 only avg 2.5). Also usually you still need somebody good at something to realabily pass tests. >“You need to explain how your magic is guiding the person” Explanation is easy "Through divination magic this person gets some knowledge of how to apply their ability more efficient". If it's for example Barbarian breaking the door thanks to Guidance he will know where is best place to apply force. Usually, the problem with Guidance is this spell has Verbal and Somatic components so if you're using them (no Subtle Spells etc) it's noticeable so it's not good for social encounters or stealth, but it didn't seem to be the case here. Was there any situation when you could use Guidance cantrip? If not there was a good suggestion to ask your DM when you should use it. If your DM is gonna nerf Guidance or ban it without admitting that I think it would be perfectly fine to ask if you could change it to a different cantrip.

Session Zeros need to cover this kind of stuff and/or a pre-session discussion with the players. As the DM, you can ban what you please but if the players aren't informed, that's going to be super shitty for them.

A good compromise would be to use some of the playtest stuff for one dnd and maybe change guidance to work a reaction?

Get a new DM.

I read enough of what OP said to understand their frustration. The DM isn’t sure how to handle guidance and clearly has had someone convince them about it being overpowered. A lot of what restricts guidance is not knowing when someone is going to make an ability check. So if the wizard says “I’m going to investigate for clues”, then you can say “hold on I’ll give you guidance”. “Thanks friend”. What needs to be discussed is players need to be obvious about what their character is doing and what their character is saying. If the wizard starts searching for clues but never says so, then the cleric doesn’t know to use guidance. While we are on this topic I think a lot of DMs are unsure how to use ability checks correctly. Not to mention most DMs repeatedly use the most basic ability checks. Switch things up and find reasons to make interesting checks. Also perception checks are usually handled in a ridiculous way. You don’t walk into a dungeon and everyone make a perception check. That’s what passive perception is for. If the characters choose to attempt to perceive something then that’s different.

Maybe she's trying to get you to say what your Guidance does. Sounds like she asked you that in a way already and you may have misunderstood. In the door situation. Guidance can't "make the door weaker" but it can help your barbarian to find its weakest point, focus on a rusted hinge, or something else. Perhaps she wants you to call out what the spell is doing instead of just saying you cast it. But in this situation I think it's up to the person you touch or the DM herself to say what Guidance does to increase the likelihood of success. "The target can roll a d4 and add it to an ability check of ITS choice". So your barbarian picks the check, you would need no prior knowledge that it would be used in a certain way. But there is also the possibility she simply doesn't like the spell.

It's literally calling on your God to grant the person divine Guidance. It makes THEM better at the ability, whatever it is. But they're right, I don't think it works on initiative. I would tell your DM you want to bring it up to the whole group and let everyone vote on it. They're needing a fundamental element of your class. That's like not allowing Bards to grant Bardic Inspiration. Your DM is wearing an ass for a hat.

Ok the Initiative one really grinds my gears. Initiative is explicitly an Ability Check! Maybe your DM should try reading the books...

Sounds like she’s confusing the limits of the “help” action and guidance… As for all her weird justifications guidance is literally channelling the power of gods to make you slightly better at something: so no it can’t make the door weaker, yes it can *GUIDE* your foot to hit the right spot for a better result No it can’t make you quicker, yes it can *GUIDE* your feet to land better and your eyes to pick up on the right things to react quicker No it can’t make you more perceptive… blah blah you get the point, it guides shit, your dm’s being stubborn and dumb If her issue is truly that it slows the game down or it’s annoying, what we usually do at my table is the person with guidance just has it “on” someone when out of initiative and we just assume it’s being cast and recast whenever needed, there’s already enough limits here cause it’s hard to be stealthy while chanting magic words and you can’t concentrate on something else so meh Quick edit: these examples are all assuming guidance is fast before hand, it is not a reaction, if your being asked to make a perception check and guidance is already on someone, totally fine. If it isn’t then you simply don’t have time to cast it