The friends cantrip has the major drawback that it's completely useless unless you're planning to murder your target before its duration expires. The game design problem it has is that there isn't really much room for 'less than Charm Person, but still does something'.
Guidance is much better than friends. Simply the fact that after 1 minute the target of friends knows you cast it on them and they become hostile towards you makes almost any social check you made in the preceding minute entirely useless.
The one circumstance where friends is useful is when you have disguise self and need to talk your way past a guard/bouncer. You can use friends to get advantage and then change your appearance as soon as you are out of sight so when they become hostile they can't find you. Otherwise friends is one of the more useless cantrips unless you actually want to start a fight.
In comparison, guidance can be applied to almost any skill check. If you know you will need to persuade or deceive someone, guidance can be cast up to a minute in advance as long as you maintain concentration. Guidance averages +2.5 which is only slightly worse than advantage depending on the DC. At higher DCs it is better than advantage.
So for versatility, usefulness and applicability, Guidance is by far the better cantrip.
It all depends on the context. "Hostile" doesn't mean "attack you with lethal force on sight", you know. Why someone would murderhobo the object of the spell is beyond me. The usefulness of the spell lies elsewhere. For example, you need to get through a checkpoint and want to make sure that you won't be stopped? Cast friends on the guard and say "Hey old friend! nice to see you, let me through will ya and I'll buy you a pint next time I'll see you." Sure, after a minute the guard will be pissed off at your trickery but they most likely won't be leaving their post to go on a lifelong vendetta against you.
I agree that "hostile" doesn't necessarily mean attack on sight. However, consider your example. You cast friends, have a conversation with the guard to let you through the checkpoint, then move on. You have a total of 60 seconds including casting, talking and walking (or running) to get away before the guard raises an alarm and possibly either chases you themselves, sends others after you or raises an alert with your description and instructions to apprehend you. Even if your persuasion worked, everyone will be alerted and after you within 60 seconds.
Keep in mind that friends doesn't make the guard friendly, it just gives you advantage on social interaction rolls.
Compare this to guidance. You gain a +d4 on the social interaction check instead of advantage, however, at the end of 60 seconds, the alarm doesn't get raised and folks aren't potentially chasing you.
If there is a guard post preventing people from passing then it is usually there for a reason and the folks manning it or operating it will likely care that someone got through who was not supposed to. Friends automatically triggers any alarm that is possible while guidance does not.
However, as I said, the one time I might choose friends is when I can cast disguise self so that after the check point they won't be able to find me anyway when they realize they were duped. On the other hand, this will still likely trigger an alarm and search which a successful skill check with guidance would not do.
In the end, I still think that guidance is a much better choice than friends even in these social situations.
By the same logic, why would a succesful skill check with guidance NOT trigger an alarm? If the guards are there to stop everyone [insert Gary Oldman gif here], then surely they would stop and think about it afterwards? Or, and this goes for both Guidance and Friends, the victim of the skill check realized that they messed up and feels embarassed about it and does everything theu can to hide their mistake? It's all DM's discretion, really. My point is that Friends is more useful when you need a quick "get out of jail free" card and Guidance is more useful if you need a slight bump.
By the same logic, why would a successful skill check with guidance NOT trigger an alarm?
A successful check with guidance is the same as a check without magical assistance, which means it might get noticed later. A persuasion or performance check will almost never result in an alarm though its DC may be higher or impossible, a deception check will result in an alarm if the deception is discovered, an intimidation check will usually result in an alarm. By comparison, friendsalways results in an alarm, in fairly short order.
Well, if you want to go down that route, casting either is optional because the DM might just let you past the guard no matter what. "It's up to the DM" is a tough argument to combat, for sure, but that doesn't make it a good one in every case.
But really, it is a hell of a lot more likely that a person who realizes that they've been the subject of a spell and all of the sudden feels animosity toward you will raise an alarm than a person who acted of their own free will and doesn't think what they did was wrong. The person who thought they were doing the right thing might be content in their decision until they're corrected (at the next shift change or report to their superior), and that is likely how I'd play it as a DM.
Well, if you want to go down that route, casting either is optional because the DM might just let you past the guard no matter what. "It's up to the DM" is a tough argument to combat, for sure, but that doesn't make it a good one in every case.
But really, it is a hell of a lot more likely that a person who realizes that they've been the subject of a spell and all of the sudden feels animosity toward you will raise an alarm than a person who acted of their own free will and doesn't think what they did was wrong. The person who thought they were doing the right thing might be content in their decision until they're corrected (at the next shift change or report to their superior), and that is likely how I'd play it as a DM.
So what you are saying is that "it's up to the DM" is not a good argument and then you just list a bunch of things that is also just "up to the DM" including "that is likely how I'd play it as a DM"? Gotcha. ;)
That is some mental gymnastics done in this thread.
I'd personally be VERY reluctant to assume that a guard who let me through and realized he did so because of a spell wouldn't sound the alarm because of embarassement or other reasons.
But maybe the players are feeling lucky, dunno. Sure, it can happen but to bank on it during infiltration? No thanks.
Well, if you want to go down that route, casting either is optional because the DM might just let you past the guard no matter what. "It's up to the DM" is a tough argument to combat, for sure, but that doesn't make it a good one in every case.
But really, it is a hell of a lot more likely that a person who realizes that they've been the subject of a spell and all of the sudden feels animosity toward you will raise an alarm than a person who acted of their own free will and doesn't think what they did was wrong. The person who thought they were doing the right thing might be content in their decision until they're corrected (at the next shift change or report to their superior), and that is likely how I'd play it as a DM.
So what you are saying is that "it's up to the DM" is not a good argument and then you just list a bunch of things that is also just "up to the DM" including "that is likely how I'd play it as a DM"? Gotcha. ;)
What I'm saying is exactly that, sure. It is up to the DM, and that argument is tough to break (and not always reasonable), and a DM who can think probably might choose to do so in a situation like this rather than throw their arms up and say "every type of social role is the same, no matter if the guard realizes a minute later that they just got screwed."
I am saying all of that.
"It's up to the DM" is always a bad argument when it requires the DM to make bad rulings to get the interpretation you want. Maybe that's what I should have said at first instead of just saying that it was sometimes a bad argument.
Well, if you want to go down that route, casting either is optional because the DM might just let you past the guard no matter what. "It's up to the DM" is a tough argument to combat, for sure, but that doesn't make it a good one in every case.
But really, it is a hell of a lot more likely that a person who realizes that they've been the subject of a spell and all of the sudden feels animosity toward you will raise an alarm than a person who acted of their own free will and doesn't think what they did was wrong. The person who thought they were doing the right thing might be content in their decision until they're corrected (at the next shift change or report to their superior), and that is likely how I'd play it as a DM.
So what you are saying is that "it's up to the DM" is not a good argument and then you just list a bunch of things that is also just "up to the DM" including "that is likely how I'd play it as a DM"? Gotcha. ;)
What I'm saying is exactly that, sure. It is up to the DM, and that argument is tough to break (and not always reasonable), and a DM who can think probably might choose to do so in a situation like this rather than throw their arms up and say "every type of social role is the same, no matter if the guard realizes a minute later that they just got screwed."
I am saying all of that.
"It's up to the DM" is always a bad argument when it requires the DM to make bad rulings to get the interpretation you want. Maybe that's what I should have said at first instead of just saying that it was sometimes a bad argument.
Now I feel you're just confrontational. That last sentence is basically just a straw man. Anywho, I think it's quite clear that the validity of both spells is situational, yes?
Now I feel you're just confrontational. That last sentence is basically just a straw man. Anywho, I think it's quite clear that the validity of both spells is situational, yes?
The validity of Friends is 'situational but rare', the validity of Guidance is 'I can spare concentration and a round to cast the spell'.
Now I feel you're just confrontational. That last sentence is basically just a straw man. Anywho, I think it's quite clear that the validity of both spells is situational, yes?
The validity of Friends is 'situational but rare', the validity of Guidance is 'I can spare concentration and a round to cast the spell'.
Now I feel you're just confrontational. That last sentence is basically just a straw man. Anywho, I think it's quite clear that the validity of both spells is situational, yes?
It is confrontational to poke fun at my previous post by construing that the two separate arguments that I made in it were one argument to make a quick joke. I only responded in kind, clarifying what the first argument should have been.
In fact, implying that the DM will treat a PC under the effects of a spell who becomes hostile and knows that he was charmed a few seconds after you walk a way the same as a person who isn't under those effects after a few seconds is your own straw man. It is simply a good general principle that relying on the DM to make bad rulings is always a bad rules argument. It just happens that you are relying on bad dming in this situation. I didn't write the straw man, I just pointed out yours and its obvious flaw.
Here's a spell selection tip: a situational spell is OK when the situation comes up a lot (not concentrating on something else) and bad when the situation never comes up (we'll be far enough away in less than a minute, and never have to deal with this person again, and they won't be able to bring any other consequences on us, and I don't mind making an enemy of them over a few social rolls, and still also not concentrating on something else). Both spells being situational does not equate to the spells being of equal value. That is also a fallacy.
Edit: Don't get all bent out of shape when you're wrong and dip to the level of making fun of arguments rather than thinking about them. That is when I get confrontational.
By the same logic, why would a succesful skill check with guidance NOT trigger an alarm? If the guards are there to stop everyone [insert Gary Oldman gif here], then surely they would stop and think about it afterwards? Or, and this goes for both Guidance and Friends, the victim of the skill check realized that they messed up and feels embarassed about it and does everything theu can to hide their mistake? It's all DM's discretion, really. My point is that Friends is more useful when you need a quick "get out of jail free" card and Guidance is more useful if you need a slight bump.
A successful check with guidance is the same as a check without magical assistance, which means it might get noticed later. A persuasion or performance check will almost never result in an alarm though its DC may be higher or impossible, a deception check will result in an alarm if the deception is discovered, an intimidation check will usually result in an alarm. By comparison, friends always results in an alarm, in fairly short order.
Not really. Like I said, that's all up to the DM.
Well, if you want to go down that route, casting either is optional because the DM might just let you past the guard no matter what. "It's up to the DM" is a tough argument to combat, for sure, but that doesn't make it a good one in every case.
But really, it is a hell of a lot more likely that a person who realizes that they've been the subject of a spell and all of the sudden feels animosity toward you will raise an alarm than a person who acted of their own free will and doesn't think what they did was wrong. The person who thought they were doing the right thing might be content in their decision until they're corrected (at the next shift change or report to their superior), and that is likely how I'd play it as a DM.
Haven’t gone on many tinder dates have you? Or been married on your way to a party/event and your wife waits till the car ride to do her makeup?
applying makeup to the face during a conversation is like 1/15 the conversations with my wife.
Blank
So what you are saying is that "it's up to the DM" is not a good argument and then you just list a bunch of things that is also just "up to the DM" including "that is likely how I'd play it as a DM"? Gotcha. ;)
That is some mental gymnastics done in this thread.
I'd personally be VERY reluctant to assume that a guard who let me through and realized he did so because of a spell wouldn't sound the alarm because of embarassement or other reasons.
But maybe the players are feeling lucky, dunno. Sure, it can happen but to bank on it during infiltration? No thanks.
What I'm saying is exactly that, sure. It is up to the DM, and that argument is tough to break (and not always reasonable), and a DM who can think probably might choose to do so in a situation like this rather than throw their arms up and say "every type of social role is the same, no matter if the guard realizes a minute later that they just got screwed."
I am saying all of that.
"It's up to the DM" is always a bad argument when it requires the DM to make bad rulings to get the interpretation you want. Maybe that's what I should have said at first instead of just saying that it was sometimes a bad argument.
Now I feel you're just confrontational. That last sentence is basically just a straw man. Anywho, I think it's quite clear that the validity of both spells is situational, yes?
The validity of Friends is 'situational but rare', the validity of Guidance is 'I can spare concentration and a round to cast the spell'.
So yes. Awesome.
It is confrontational to poke fun at my previous post by construing that the two separate arguments that I made in it were one argument to make a quick joke. I only responded in kind, clarifying what the first argument should have been.
In fact, implying that the DM will treat a PC under the effects of a spell who becomes hostile and knows that he was charmed a few seconds after you walk a way the same as a person who isn't under those effects after a few seconds is your own straw man. It is simply a good general principle that relying on the DM to make bad rulings is always a bad rules argument. It just happens that you are relying on bad dming in this situation. I didn't write the straw man, I just pointed out yours and its obvious flaw.
Here's a spell selection tip: a situational spell is OK when the situation comes up a lot (not concentrating on something else) and bad when the situation never comes up (we'll be far enough away in less than a minute, and never have to deal with this person again, and they won't be able to bring any other consequences on us, and I don't mind making an enemy of them over a few social rolls, and still also not concentrating on something else). Both spells being situational does not equate to the spells being of equal value. That is also a fallacy.
Edit: Don't get all bent out of shape when you're wrong and dip to the level of making fun of arguments rather than thinking about them. That is when I get confrontational.