D&D 5E Spells you house rule?

[DND_Reborn]

I would think it depends on how the passive check is being used. Passive checks are used in two instances:

1. instead of rolling the same ability check repeatedly (the finding secret doors over and over again part...)
2. when the DM wants to secretly determines without rolling dice (noticing a hidden monster part...)

In the first instance, guidance can't be used for the passive because it applies to only one check. In essence, the PC would perhaps use guidance on one specific check first (a normal active ability check) when the activity starts, but then cannot apply it to any passive checks. Since guidance uses your action, you couldn't even cast it each round and then make the check since both require your action; so it wouldn't work with passive checks IMO.

Now, I could see guidance perhaps being applied to instance 2 above, where the DM doesn't want to disclose information but the situation might be more "active". For example, a PC might be scouting and think a monster is hiding in ambush, so asks to make a Wisdom (Perception) check. The DM asks for the character's passive score, and the player says "I want to roll my guidance d4, ok?" The DM says "Ok, go ahead and I'll add it to your passive score."

However, in the second instance, often those uses are due to the PC not "actively" using the ability, which is why it is passive. In such cases, guidance wouldn't work IMO.

That's how I run it anyway.

 

[jmartkdr2]

In practice, I've found guidance is fine if you only apply it to tasks the caster reasonably could have seen coming - after all you, need to cast it on your own turn before the check happens.

Forcecage is great for enemies you don't need to actually kill, just get past. An hour later you're gonna be pretty far away.

Shield is one of those effects that can be overpowered if you can use it all the time - but long adventuring days are hard to enforce, especially at high levels where you need really long days and players have a lot of ways around combats they don't want to bother with.

 

[el-remmen]

The specific clause is: "A passive check is a special kind of ability check".

So technically yes, guidance could apply to passive checks.

Yeah, naw. That's not happening in my games. Someone can't guide you for a check neither they nor you know is happening.

 

[Stalker0]

Yeah, naw. That's not happening in my games. Someone can't guide you for a check neither they nor you know is happening.

And I think that's a fair interpretation as well. The easy counterpoint to "it works on passive checks" is that guidance says "one ability check you choose". If you argue that a character does not choose to do passive checks, its simply a consequence of other things going on, than even if the bonus is applicable, you could never choose to apply it.

Hehe but I think this guidance debate is starting to consume the thread, so I'll just reiterate my fix that just completely solves the issue

Guidance: Duration becomes 1 hour (concentration). 6 characters within range gain a +1 to all ability checks for the duration.

Enjoy never having to have a single debate about guidance at your table ever again.

 

[el-remmen]

Enjoy never having to have a single debate about guidance at your table ever again.

I've actually never had a debate about guidance at my table. The one player whose character can cast it never pushes it and is quick to accept my ruling if there is doubt. (which is how it should be )

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But the test of skill occurred when the Bard was saying the thing that lead to the Persuasion check.

Example:

DM: As you approach the tower of Tharizdun, you spot two clearly bored Orc sentries. They look up at you and snort a challenge.
Bard Player: As they do so I step forward, hold out the Symbol of the Elemental Eye and boldly say: We're here at the request of your master. Stand aside or be punished for your insolence!'
DM: (pauses to think of a DC for the lie/ threat); OK, make me an Intimidate check.

From that moment, I'm not allowing the Help action, (unless another player can chime in with something that is likely to help the Bard in his lie/ threat at this point) or the casting of Guidance, because the thing I'm asking for the check for has already happened.

counter example

Example:

DM: As you approach the tower of Tharizdun, you spot two clearly bored Orc sentries. They look up at you and snort a challenge.
Bard Player: As they do so I step forward, hold out the Symbol of the Elemental Eye and boldly say: We're here at the request of your master. Stand aside or be punished for your insolence!'

DM: (pauses to think of a DC for the lie/ threat); OK, make me an Intimidate check.

other player: Before he does that I cast guidence

DM: Okay roll with +1d4

that is how it goes at mytable... the word before matters

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The damage of Fireball is dropped to 7d6 or 6d6, so it's less of a "well duh" choice, and doesn't eclipse every damage spell of level 2, 3, 4 or sometimes 5. Lightning Bolt is one die higher, to reflect the fact that it's much harder to catch a group with it.

that sounds like what it should have been to begin with

Polymorph is split into two spells, one to turn enemies into harmless creatures, and one to transform allies. And maybe remove some go-to forms like Giant Ape.

in 3e they started to make it work with "troll form" I would love to break up the 'turn into anything into a bunch of spells turn into 1 (or maybe a small group like flying animal form, dragon form)creature

 

[James Gasik]

that sounds like what it should have been to begin with

in 3e they started to make it work with "troll form" I would love to break up the 'turn into anything into a bunch of spells turn into 1 (or maybe a small group like flying animal form, dragon form)creature

I don't know, I mean, I'm happy to finally have spell damage increased relative to hit points- in 3e it was pretty nuts to realize that fireball was still doing the same damage it did in the 70's, but monsters had way more hit points.

I know people bring up the guidelines for spell damage in the DMG a lot, but does an extra d6 really matter that much?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't know, I mean, I'm happy to finally have spell damage increased relative to hit points- in 3e it was pretty nuts to realize that fireball was still doing the same damage it did in the 70's, but monsters had way more hit points.

I know people bring up the guidelines for spell damage in the DMG a lot, but does an extra d6 really matter that much?

yes it does... especially when you sit there and say "what spell should I take?"

 

[Oofta]

I think the biggest issue I have with fireball is that most DMs don't consider the side effects of a spell that "... ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried" within a 20 foot radius. It helps balance things out in my games.