If you found this to restrictive you could even, make it number uses per proficiency per caster per-day instead of character. Then the bard can cast guidance it twice on the rouge and the paladin can cast guidance twice on the rouge or the elf rouge could cast guidance on themselves (thanks to a feat), the bard could then cast guidance, and finally the paladin adds their guidance leading to +3d4 on a sneak attack that would have missed or a successful pick pocket of keys.
That's not how things work in DnD. A single spell, magic item, feature, or just about anything else can only affect somebody once. You cannot stack buffs (or debuffs) from any two things with the same name. The only real exception is if a single spell has multiple options, like symbol. Getting 3d4 from guidance is impossible, especially so on attack rolls since guidance only works on ability checks.
Yes, they stated in the video that you can use inspiration with bardic inspiration they are different things you just can't stack the same spell.
This is one of the issues with having two hunters they both can't use hunters mark on the same enemy. Oh, I need to point that out in the survey as yet another reson why ity should not be a spell.
Hunter's mark is divination (if I remember right) meaning the mark is actually not the effected party the ranger is. The ranger deals more damage to a target, NOT the target takes more damage.
Yes, they stated in the video that you can use inspiration with bardic inspiration they are different things you just can't stack the same spell.
This is one of the issues with having two hunters they both can't use hunters mark on the same enemy. Oh, I need to point that out in the survey as yet another reson why ity should not be a spell.
There's no actual rule preventing using the same spell twice on the same target, it's just that only the most potent effect actually takes effect, and there's nothing saying that the most potent effect can't be variable with time.
I suspect making things like inspiration and bardic inspiration not stack would make the game better, though; reaching a DC 30 or whatever should require actually doing something interesting, not just stacking a bunch of individually small effects.
I mentioned this in another thread, but Guidance totally doesn't need the once per day per person limit. I've played up to fifth level and entering Wave Echo Cave in Lost Mine of Phandelver with the new rules. Two characters have Guidance. Over 7 in-game days, there were only 3 rolls where Guidance might have been used but wasn't because of this limit. No more than once a day. That won't break anything to let people have another use every now and then. Some characters never got to use it at all in a day. It all balances out.
This result happened because of the other restrictions on the spell. It already limits itself well. You have to:
Have a Reaction to use.
Be within 30 feet of your target.
They have to fail an ability check.
And they have to fail by no more than 4 points for it to matter.
Most of the time all of these just don't apply. You either succeed, or obviously fail by more than 4, or aren't near each other. Tracking who has used it already is annoying. And it can even lead to more discussion and weirdness at the table, where one player says they don't want to try the check at all because it's important and they've used their allotment for the day, so they want someone else to do it. Not that it's common, but it's definitely a disruptive and strange conversation to have. And that's what we're trying to avoid in the first place.
In my feedback, I'll be saying I love the changes to the spell, just get rid of that restriction. If they don't, I just won't require it anyway. No one has time for that. Much better spell overall, just let people have it.
I mentioned this in another thread, but Guidance totally doesn't need the once per day per person limit. I've played up to fifth level and entering Wave Echo Cave in Lost Mine of Phandelver with the new rules. Two characters have Guidance. Over 7 in-game days, there were only 3 rolls where Guidance might have been used but wasn't because of this limit. No more than once a day. That won't break anything to let people have another use every now and then. Some characters never got to use it at all in a day. It all balances out.
This result happened because of the other restrictions on the spell. It already limits itself well. You have to:
Have a Reaction to use.
Be within 30 feet of your target.
They have to fail an ability check.
And they have to fail by no more than 4 points for it to matter.
Most of the time all of these just don't apply. You either succeed, or obviously fail by more than 4, or aren't near each other. Tracking who has used it already is annoying. And it can even lead to more discussion and weirdness at the table, where one player says they don't want to try the check at all because it's important and they've used their allotment for the day, so they want someone else to do it. Not that it's common, but it's definitely a disruptive and strange conversation to have. And that's what we're trying to avoid in the first place.
In my feedback, I'll be saying I love the changes to the spell, just get rid of that restriction. If they don't, I just won't require it anyway. No one has time for that. Much better spell overall, just let people have it.
I'd mostly agree here
A single player has to make an average of around 12-13 eligible checks in a day before the rule impacts them. That means not only in range and while the caster has a reaction, but also accounting for situations where suddenly casting a spell might cause issues. Things like bartering, standoffs, sneaking, etc. It can and will happen, but I don't think it will be incredibly relevant.
Ranged rogues who carry guidance with them are probably an exception to this. If they are trying to hide every turn in addition to their out of combat checks, 15+ eligible checks a day seems very reasonable, so the limit will actually be relevant to them.
Fair point. That is a pretty rare edge case though. And it's still a narrow range of results where it would actually help, but I could also see an argument that the verbal component of the spell would ruin any hide attempt by the caster anyway.
Either way, I wouldn't want to restrict everyone in the game just because a Rogue might take a spell that helps them hide sometimes.
Fair point. That is a pretty rare edge case though. And it's still a narrow range of results where it would actually help, but I could also see an argument that the verbal component of the spell would ruin any hide attempt by the caster anyway.
Either way, I wouldn't want to restrict everyone in the game just because a Rogue might take a spell that helps them hide sometimes.
What would you think if the range was limited to 10 feet or back to touch? How about the caster not being able to benefit from the spell? Would these maybe be reasonable restrictions if targets could benefit from it unlimited times and reduce possible abuse?
Fair point. That is a pretty rare edge case though. And it's still a narrow range of results where it would actually help, but I could also see an argument that the verbal component of the spell would ruin any hide attempt by the caster anyway.
Either way, I wouldn't want to restrict everyone in the game just because a Rogue might take a spell that helps them hide sometimes.
What would you think if the range was limited to 10 feet or back to touch? How about the caster not being able to benefit from the spell? Would these maybe be reasonable restrictions if targets could benefit from it unlimited times and reduce possible abuse?
I'm trying to answer this as openly as I can, because I really don't want to advocate for a change that could end up just as bad as what we currently have, or worse. I don't think 5e Guidance is totally terrible either, but I know the goal is to make it better, and I think this UA version is definitely better.
I can't be sure that someone won't find a way to abuse the spell. But we went into playtesting it with the full intent of abusing it as much as possible. I wanted to really see if we could break it. Two characters could cast it, the Bard and the multiclass Ranger/Rogue, so we could see if it was a waste to have it on multiple characters. We tracked it with little bubbles on the character sheets to fill in when you'd use your allotment for the day. I kept track of every time it would have been useful but the daily limit stopped it. I made sure to call for skill rolls as often as was reasonable, even if the adventure said someone could just do something by declaring it without a check. We did at least one persuasion roll and Insight roll in every social encounter. And we cast Guidance in every single case where it might even remotely work.
So I didn't even stop to ask if it made sense, like bartering with a merchant or trying to hide. And the ranger/rogue did begin most battles at range in hiding, though usually the benefits of two weapon fighting and the nature of the battles meant she often closed into melee quickly after. She did cast it on herself in some hide attempts. We cast it right in front of NPCs while openly trying to convince them of something. Basically a lot of situations where I would normally say as a DM that it's not really appropriate. Because I don't want a new DM to need to have experience to make those judgement calls. We really wanted to abuse the spell.
So the only restrictions I placed were what is in the spell description. The caster needs a Reaction, they have to be within 30', and the target has to fail the skill check. I even openly pointed out when that d4 could have meant a success, and asked them to add Guidance, something I wouldn't normally do.
And honestly... it just worked.
It worked great. The only bad part about it was tracking it, which ended up not really being necessary at all. I would happily give a character more successes a day in any real game just to avoid that.
So to answer your questions, I think a range of touch wouldn't work. As a Reaction, you'd almost never get to use it that way. You'd end up with the caster walking around with her hand on someone's shoulder the whole time, just in case. I can't think of many times we used it where the caster was that close. A range of 10' might be okay, but 30' seemed just right. Normally if you want to cast it, it's because you're watching a party member do something you want to be a safe distance from, like jumping a pit or disarming a trap. You could say that the caster can't use it on themselves, but that does feel like it goes against the theme a little bit. It would be kind of strange if you could pray for someone else but not yourself. Especially for clerics. But it wouldn't be the worst change.
Really, I don't think it needs any more restrictions. It's a good spell. The reaction element feels right in actual play. It's easy to tell if it would matter or not most of the time. It's easy to adjudicate. And even when you try to abuse it, you just really can't. At least we weren't able to, as hard as we tried, and we really tried.
Fair point. That is a pretty rare edge case though. And it's still a narrow range of results where it would actually help, but I could also see an argument that the verbal component of the spell would ruin any hide attempt by the caster anyway.
Either way, I wouldn't want to restrict everyone in the game just because a Rogue might take a spell that helps them hide sometimes.
Well, what if they were throwing their voice to another area as part of casting the spell thus distracting everyone and adding to the hide check as they think they hear something beside them look away and then swoosh gone.
Fair point. That is a pretty rare edge case though. And it's still a narrow range of results where it would actually help, but I could also see an argument that the verbal component of the spell would ruin any hide attempt by the caster anyway.
Either way, I wouldn't want to restrict everyone in the game just because a Rogue might take a spell that helps them hide sometimes.
Well, what if they were throwing their voice to another area as part of casting the spell thus distracting everyone and adding to the hide check as they think they hear something beside them look away and then swoosh gone.
I was speaking more from a game mechanic perspective. The Hidden condition rules say it ends if you speak louder than a whisper. Verbal spell components are meant to be a limiter on when you can cast a spell. That's why things like Subtle Spell exist. I would assume you can't cast a spell with a Verbal component without breaking the hidden condition, since that is considered to be louder than a whisper without special abilities. So I could see someone make a fair argument that you can't succeed on Hiding if you do something that would break the condition as part of trying to hide in the first place.
If you wanted to do something like throwing your voice on a spell, a DM might rule that you need subtle spell, or the actor feat, or a performance check, etc.
But again, I don't think it really breaks anything in the game to just allow players to cast Guidance every single time they meet the criteria. We have done that in playtesting for 5 levels to try to abuse it. And it still worked just fine. Let them cast it when hiding, it doesn't hurt anything. They know the DC is 15. It will only matter if they roll an 11-14. And it will only even help half of those times. This new spell is way better for the flow of the game than the old one. I just think it doesn't even need to 'once per day' restriction. After many long rests of testing, it rarely came into play anyway. I'd rather give away one free use of Guidance a day than make people track it and make the spell look bad to players when it isn't.
Fair point. That is a pretty rare edge case though. And it's still a narrow range of results where it would actually help, but I could also see an argument that the verbal component of the spell would ruin any hide attempt by the caster anyway.
Either way, I wouldn't want to restrict everyone in the game just because a Rogue might take a spell that helps them hide sometimes.
Well, what if they were throwing their voice to another area as part of casting the spell thus distracting everyone and adding to the hide check as they think they hear something beside them look away and then swoosh gone.
I was speaking more from a game mechanic perspective. The Hidden condition rules say it ends if you speak louder than a whisper. Verbal spell components are meant to be a limiter on when you can cast a spell. That's why things like Subtle Spell exist. I would assume you can't cast a spell with a Verbal component without breaking the hidden condition, since that is considered to be louder than a whisper without special abilities. So I could see someone make a fair argument that you can't succeed on Hiding if you do something that would break the condition as part of trying to hide in the first place.
If you wanted to do something like throwing your voice on a spell, a DM might rule that you need subtle spell, or the actor feat, or a performance check, etc.
But again, I don't think it really breaks anything in the game to just allow players to cast Guidance every single time they meet the criteria. We have done that in playtesting for 5 levels to try to abuse it. And it still worked just fine. Let them cast it when hiding, it doesn't hurt anything. They know the DC is 15. It will only matter if they roll an 11-14. And it will only even help half of those times. This new spell is way better for the flow of the game than the old one. I just think it doesn't even need to 'once per day' restriction. After many long rests of testing, it rarely came into play anyway. I'd rather give away one free use of Guidance a day than make people track it and make the spell look bad to players when it isn't.
While I believe that is how components are currently used I think they should move more towards components being a limit in the same way a sword is a limit on where you can use it due to squeezing. how it can be taken from you etc. Actually balance magic vs mundane so that is all a component comes down to, have all attack spells require a focus. Subtle spell would still be useful as it lets you use magic when stripped of your weapons.
i think it might be fine if they get rid of the once per day per player restriction, since it wouldnt be spammed, unless players are failing all the time (in which case they need it), which seems to be the primary complaint about its 5e incarnation. If DMs want to say using this in social situations will increase the DC, thats fine, its your table. Also, no more using it on initiative, although, not many were doing this and was easy to ban.
GUIDANCE
0-Level Divination Spell (Divine, Primal)
Casting Time: Reaction, which you take in response to you or an ally within 30 feet of you failing an Ability Check
Range: 30 feet
Component: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous
You channel magical insight to the creature who failed the Ability Check. That creature can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to the check, potentially turning it into a success.
So, your solution for what already was one of the best cantrips in the game is to essentially buff it from 5e: removing concentration, changing it from an action to a reaction, and giving it 30' of range instead of touch.
if the problem is overuse because people are using it for everything always, then limiting its use to only when there are fails would likely reduce use.
Did I misinterpret the intent of the redesign? Was it overpowered? Or was it overpowered because it could be overused?
OVERUSE That has always been its problem. Ever play a game of MTG? With a Blue Player? There is a card that says any time an opponent casts a spell unless they pay 1 mana more you get to draw a card. Here is how that goes... P1: casts a spell, P2: you gonna pay for that? P1: casts another spell, P2: You gonna pay for that? (rinse and repeat).
Conversations at the table with that cantrip... Acrobatic Rogue: I am going to parkour up to the roof. Cleric: Guidance! Fast Talking Bard: I am going to ... Cleric: Guidance! Fighter: I am... Cleric: Guidance! DM: Ranger make a survival... Cleric: Guidance!
The spell is not justBAH - ROH - KENit is annoying to every player at the table except the user.
Then making it a reaction should fix that problem
Not if it is still a repeatable cast. If anything that would make it more broken and annoying.
IMO it NEVER should have been a cantrip in the first place.
I already said this, but I feel it is worth mentioning again why not limit it to number of times per proficiency per day per player. It is still a reaction it is still spam-able, but it is limited enough to make it helpful without being annoying.
looks like they liked my idea but restricted the range
Yeah I'm really happy with this. It's almost exactly what I asked for. I don't even think the range needed to be reduced. It worked just fine in playtesting with 30' range. But I'll take a 10' limit over tracking uses per player.
I agree. I think this is a solid change for the Guidance spell.
I even like Resistance as a 1d4 reaction bonus to saves. Maybe if True Strike was a 1d4 reaction bonus to attack rolls it might see some use and complete the d20 trifecta (Saves, Skills and Attacks)
I agree. I think this is a solid change for the Guidance spell.
I even like Resistance as a 1d4 reaction bonus to saves. Maybe if True Strike was a 1d4 reaction bonus to attack rolls it might see some use and complete the d20 trifecta (Saves, Skills and Attacks)
Oh that's a great idea! I forgot to mention how much I liked the Resistance change. It might actually be used now. But I never considered applying the same to True Strike. Incredible!
I agree. I think this is a solid change for the Guidance spell.
I even like Resistance as a 1d4 reaction bonus to saves. Maybe if True Strike was a 1d4 reaction bonus to attack rolls it might see some use and complete the d20 trifecta (Saves, Skills and Attacks)
Yep. Good idea. 10 ft limitation is fairly balanced. And it's only logical to do the same with True Strike. Then there's also Blade Ward...
Yeah, I like this change. The 10' range means the Cleric has to be right up there in the mix of whatever's happening, which, assuming people remember that spell components are obvious, should impose reasonable limits on use without having to resort to bookkeeping.
And yes, applying the same design to Resistance is great and really saves the cantrip. Thaumaturge clerics will breathe a sigh of relief that they actually have four good options at level two.
Yeah, I like this change. The 10' range means the Cleric has to be right up there in the mix of whatever's happening, which, assuming people remember that spell components are obvious, should impose reasonable limits on use without having to resort to bookkeeping.
And yes, applying the same design to Resistance is great and really saves the cantrip. Thaumaturge clerics will breathe a sigh of relief that they actually have four good options at level two.
Haha, right? We really need some more Cleric cantrips. Even if they just let each Domain get one specific thematic one from another spell list.
I like the change to resistance and with the new changes to Guidance it made it more usable. Think true strike and blade ward would get some love as well? I hope they get changed to bonus action.
I'm going with no on resistance, its too damn good. If it was limited to damage from spells, or from damaging effects maybe. But we don't need this much concentration save protection. It becomes a must have cantrip just to keep our spells up.
I'm going with no on resistance, its too damn good. If it was limited to damage from spells, or from damaging effects maybe. But we don't need this much concentration save protection. It becomes a must have cantrip just to keep our spells up.
I would use it more often on those times when one of my party members just can't seem to make a saving throw and repeatedly fail. That happens a lot in the games I am in. When it comes to concentration, I either succeed easily or fail by a lot more that a d4 could handle lol.
Hunter's mark is divination (if I remember right) meaning the mark is actually not the effected party the ranger is. The ranger deals more damage to a target, NOT the target takes more damage.
There's no actual rule preventing using the same spell twice on the same target, it's just that only the most potent effect actually takes effect, and there's nothing saying that the most potent effect can't be variable with time.
I suspect making things like inspiration and bardic inspiration not stack would make the game better, though; reaching a DC 30 or whatever should require actually doing something interesting, not just stacking a bunch of individually small effects.
I mentioned this in another thread, but Guidance totally doesn't need the once per day per person limit. I've played up to fifth level and entering Wave Echo Cave in Lost Mine of Phandelver with the new rules. Two characters have Guidance. Over 7 in-game days, there were only 3 rolls where Guidance might have been used but wasn't because of this limit. No more than once a day. That won't break anything to let people have another use every now and then. Some characters never got to use it at all in a day. It all balances out.
This result happened because of the other restrictions on the spell. It already limits itself well. You have to:
Have a Reaction to use.
Be within 30 feet of your target.
They have to fail an ability check.
And they have to fail by no more than 4 points for it to matter.
Most of the time all of these just don't apply. You either succeed, or obviously fail by more than 4, or aren't near each other. Tracking who has used it already is annoying. And it can even lead to more discussion and weirdness at the table, where one player says they don't want to try the check at all because it's important and they've used their allotment for the day, so they want someone else to do it. Not that it's common, but it's definitely a disruptive and strange conversation to have. And that's what we're trying to avoid in the first place.
In my feedback, I'll be saying I love the changes to the spell, just get rid of that restriction. If they don't, I just won't require it anyway. No one has time for that. Much better spell overall, just let people have it.
I'd mostly agree here
A single player has to make an average of around 12-13 eligible checks in a day before the rule impacts them. That means not only in range and while the caster has a reaction, but also accounting for situations where suddenly casting a spell might cause issues. Things like bartering, standoffs, sneaking, etc. It can and will happen, but I don't think it will be incredibly relevant.
Ranged rogues who carry guidance with them are probably an exception to this. If they are trying to hide every turn in addition to their out of combat checks, 15+ eligible checks a day seems very reasonable, so the limit will actually be relevant to them.
Fair point. That is a pretty rare edge case though. And it's still a narrow range of results where it would actually help, but I could also see an argument that the verbal component of the spell would ruin any hide attempt by the caster anyway.
Either way, I wouldn't want to restrict everyone in the game just because a Rogue might take a spell that helps them hide sometimes.
What would you think if the range was limited to 10 feet or back to touch? How about the caster not being able to benefit from the spell? Would these maybe be reasonable restrictions if targets could benefit from it unlimited times and reduce possible abuse?
I'm trying to answer this as openly as I can, because I really don't want to advocate for a change that could end up just as bad as what we currently have, or worse. I don't think 5e Guidance is totally terrible either, but I know the goal is to make it better, and I think this UA version is definitely better.
I can't be sure that someone won't find a way to abuse the spell. But we went into playtesting it with the full intent of abusing it as much as possible. I wanted to really see if we could break it. Two characters could cast it, the Bard and the multiclass Ranger/Rogue, so we could see if it was a waste to have it on multiple characters. We tracked it with little bubbles on the character sheets to fill in when you'd use your allotment for the day. I kept track of every time it would have been useful but the daily limit stopped it. I made sure to call for skill rolls as often as was reasonable, even if the adventure said someone could just do something by declaring it without a check. We did at least one persuasion roll and Insight roll in every social encounter. And we cast Guidance in every single case where it might even remotely work.
So I didn't even stop to ask if it made sense, like bartering with a merchant or trying to hide. And the ranger/rogue did begin most battles at range in hiding, though usually the benefits of two weapon fighting and the nature of the battles meant she often closed into melee quickly after. She did cast it on herself in some hide attempts. We cast it right in front of NPCs while openly trying to convince them of something. Basically a lot of situations where I would normally say as a DM that it's not really appropriate. Because I don't want a new DM to need to have experience to make those judgement calls. We really wanted to abuse the spell.
So the only restrictions I placed were what is in the spell description. The caster needs a Reaction, they have to be within 30', and the target has to fail the skill check. I even openly pointed out when that d4 could have meant a success, and asked them to add Guidance, something I wouldn't normally do.
And honestly... it just worked.
It worked great. The only bad part about it was tracking it, which ended up not really being necessary at all. I would happily give a character more successes a day in any real game just to avoid that.
So to answer your questions, I think a range of touch wouldn't work. As a Reaction, you'd almost never get to use it that way. You'd end up with the caster walking around with her hand on someone's shoulder the whole time, just in case. I can't think of many times we used it where the caster was that close. A range of 10' might be okay, but 30' seemed just right. Normally if you want to cast it, it's because you're watching a party member do something you want to be a safe distance from, like jumping a pit or disarming a trap. You could say that the caster can't use it on themselves, but that does feel like it goes against the theme a little bit. It would be kind of strange if you could pray for someone else but not yourself. Especially for clerics. But it wouldn't be the worst change.
Really, I don't think it needs any more restrictions. It's a good spell. The reaction element feels right in actual play. It's easy to tell if it would matter or not most of the time. It's easy to adjudicate. And even when you try to abuse it, you just really can't. At least we weren't able to, as hard as we tried, and we really tried.
Well, what if they were throwing their voice to another area as part of casting the spell thus distracting everyone and adding to the hide check as they think they hear something beside them look away and then swoosh gone.
I was speaking more from a game mechanic perspective. The Hidden condition rules say it ends if you speak louder than a whisper. Verbal spell components are meant to be a limiter on when you can cast a spell. That's why things like Subtle Spell exist. I would assume you can't cast a spell with a Verbal component without breaking the hidden condition, since that is considered to be louder than a whisper without special abilities. So I could see someone make a fair argument that you can't succeed on Hiding if you do something that would break the condition as part of trying to hide in the first place.
If you wanted to do something like throwing your voice on a spell, a DM might rule that you need subtle spell, or the actor feat, or a performance check, etc.
But again, I don't think it really breaks anything in the game to just allow players to cast Guidance every single time they meet the criteria. We have done that in playtesting for 5 levels to try to abuse it. And it still worked just fine. Let them cast it when hiding, it doesn't hurt anything. They know the DC is 15. It will only matter if they roll an 11-14. And it will only even help half of those times. This new spell is way better for the flow of the game than the old one. I just think it doesn't even need to 'once per day' restriction. After many long rests of testing, it rarely came into play anyway. I'd rather give away one free use of Guidance a day than make people track it and make the spell look bad to players when it isn't.
While I believe that is how components are currently used I think they should move more towards components being a limit in the same way a sword is a limit on where you can use it due to squeezing. how it can be taken from you etc. Actually balance magic vs mundane so that is all a component comes down to, have all attack spells require a focus. Subtle spell would still be useful as it lets you use magic when stripped of your weapons.
looks like they liked my idea but restricted the range
Yeah I'm really happy with this. It's almost exactly what I asked for. I don't even think the range needed to be reduced. It worked just fine in playtesting with 30' range. But I'll take a 10' limit over tracking uses per player.
I agree. I think this is a solid change for the Guidance spell.
I even like Resistance as a 1d4 reaction bonus to saves. Maybe if True Strike was a 1d4 reaction bonus to attack rolls it might see some use and complete the d20 trifecta (Saves, Skills and Attacks)
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Oh that's a great idea! I forgot to mention how much I liked the Resistance change. It might actually be used now. But I never considered applying the same to True Strike. Incredible!
Yep. Good idea. 10 ft limitation is fairly balanced. And it's only logical to do the same with True Strike. Then there's also Blade Ward...
Yeah, I like this change. The 10' range means the Cleric has to be right up there in the mix of whatever's happening, which, assuming people remember that spell components are obvious, should impose reasonable limits on use without having to resort to bookkeeping.
And yes, applying the same design to Resistance is great and really saves the cantrip. Thaumaturge clerics will breathe a sigh of relief that they actually have four good options at level two.
Haha, right? We really need some more Cleric cantrips. Even if they just let each Domain get one specific thematic one from another spell list.
I like the change to resistance and with the new changes to Guidance it made it more usable. Think true strike and blade ward would get some love as well? I hope they get changed to bonus action.
I'm going with no on resistance, its too damn good. If it was limited to damage from spells, or from damaging effects maybe. But we don't need this much concentration save protection. It becomes a must have cantrip just to keep our spells up.
I would use it more often on those times when one of my party members just can't seem to make a saving throw and repeatedly fail. That happens a lot in the games I am in. When it comes to concentration, I either succeed easily or fail by a lot more that a d4 could handle lol.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master