D&D 5E Mitigating players spamming Help, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, and oh I’ll roll too?

[doctorbadwolf]

But, no 4th level pc ever has to fail at a job represented by an easy skill check. The GM can always choose to represent that die roll as a progress with setback.

I imagine that even you have had days or tasks where it didnt go as planned but you recovered and set it back right.

The rate of not getting the job done is always 100% in the hands of the GM on skill checks.

PHB under "Ability Checks"

"Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM."

This is one of the most important things to understanding 5e skills.

Also, if it’s a simple task, with no time pressure or distractions, and the character is proficient, it shouldn’t even be a roll unless the DM wants to see how well they do at it.

 

[cmad1977]

This is one of the most important things to understanding 5e skills.

Also, if it’s a simple task, with no time pressure or distractions, and the character is proficient, it shouldn’t even be a roll unless the DM wants to see how well they do at it.

If it’s an epically difficult task with no time pressure or distractions I don’t roll.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I think @Apostol Apostolov's house rules are pretty good with regards to skill retries and the Help action. Guidance and Bardic Inspiration are a little more complex.

Limitations on Guidance:
Requires a willing creature - maybe the recipient might follow a deity in opposition the caster's deity (bonus becomes penalty).
Duration is a minute - Conversation might flow longer than a minute
Guidance is Verbal and Somatic - perhaps cannot be easily cast without being noticed by others (i.e. in the middle of a Social challenge). If noticed, this could result in a Disadvantage being applied or outright failure of the skill check.
Concentration mechanic - so only one affected at a time.

Skill Challenges:
Multiple skill checks reduce the effectiveness of Guidance or Bardic Inspiration.
Guidance may perhaps assist only one skill check in an active short-based Social/Exploration skill challenge.

Resource:
Bardic Inspiration has a limited number of uses, so it is an actual expended resource.

Immediate versus Prepared:
When someone is busy performing an immediate check (recalling some lore, active perception), I personally would not allow the use of Guidance or Bardic Inspiration, unless the spell/ability was already in effect.
So generally Guidance and Bardic Inspiration require forethought - before attempting to Stealth, Pick a Lock or Climb...etc

Skill check representing extended Time Period:
If the Exploration challenge was over a course of days/weeks - I would not even consider giving the character a bonus as the skill challenge represents a degree of effort/concentration/thought over a longer period of time than just 1 or 10 minutes.
At most 1 check out of x would gain the benefit to reflect (a) the daily divine benefit from Guidance or (b) the continued reinvigorated spirits provided by the bard during the streneous journey.

This is a really great post, I do similarly as a GM and impose on myself as a player... I have one add to this"

You mentioned, "requires forethought" to me and my GM when I am a player... This is rule number one on checks. If the GM calls for check then a player yell "I cast guidance!" then we say "good for you, the check happened before the spell was cast or after the spell faded and it has no effect on the role". If player says "I found a trap on this door, hold up a second I am going to dis arm it" then another player says "If you let me I walk over and cast guidance on to aid and protect you then step back 10ft around the corner just incase you fail anyway" or a player says "I feel like we are being watched or possibly followed, I keep repeatedly casting guidance on myself and keeping an eye behind us being paranoid and not trying to stealth because I want to keep up with the paladin clanking down the middle of the street in full plate and undaunted or simply indifferent to the thought of an ambush" then we would allow guidance in both cases because the threat, real or perceived is their and on the mind of the players causing the players to have the forethought to use these abilities. If you have not been attacked, in the middle of the day, walking with no indication of trouble, spamming guidance or bardic inspiration would seem like a crazy person talking to themselves... if the player is willing to submit to that character archetype I would allow it BUT … if your walking around with a crazy paranoid person whispering prayers of guidance every 10 minutes all the time... then they are going to get reactions you might expect from having a crazy paranoid person whispering prayers of guidance all the time in the form of negatives to social interactions, harassment, and denial of access to places that don't want to freak out other people in their establishments and/or question your groups mental stability, reliability, or caste. The door swings both ways.

 

[5ekyu]

This is a really great post, I do similarly as a GM and impose on myself as a player... I have one add to this"

You mentioned, "requires forethought" to me and my GM when I am a player... This is rule number one on checks. If the GM calls for check then a player yell "I cast guidance!" then we say "good for you, the check happened before the spell was cast or after the spell faded and it has no effect on the role". If player says "I found a trap on this door, hold up a second I am going to dis arm it" then another player says "If you let me I walk over and cast guidance on to aid and protect you then step back 10ft around the corner just incase you fail anyway" or a player says "I feel like we are being watched or possibly followed, I keep repeatedly casting guidance on myself and keeping an eye behind us being paranoid and not trying to stealth because I want to keep up with the paladin clanking down the middle of the street in full plate and undaunted or simply indifferent to the thought of an ambush" then we would allow guidance in both cases because the threat, real or perceived is their and on the mind of the players causing the players to have the forethought to use these abilities. If you have not been attacked, in the middle of the day, walking with no indication of trouble, spamming guidance or bardic inspiration would seem like a crazy person talking to themselves... if the player is willing to submit to that character archetype I would allow it BUT … if your walking around with a crazy paranoid person whispering prayers of guidance every 10 minutes all the time... then they are going to get reactions you might expect from having a crazy paranoid person whispering prayers of guidance all the time in the form of negatives to social interactions, harassment, and denial of access to places that don't want to freak out other people in their establishments and/or question your groups mental stability, reliability, or caste. The door swings both ways.

I am also with you on the not allowing after check guidance but in the interest of "door swings both ways" also being sure as gm to give them a beat between "its uncertain if you will succeed" and "you start it" for these things.

The "gm calls check" should not be in and of itself an ambush. (Exception - actual ambushes)

 

[Mort]

If you have not been attacked, in the middle of the day, walking with no indication of trouble, spamming guidance or bardic inspiration would seem like a crazy person talking to themselves... if the player is willing to submit to that character archetype I would allow it BUT … if your walking around with a crazy paranoid person whispering prayers of guidance every 10 minutes all the time... then they are going to get reactions you might expect from having...

I don't disagree with your overall point, but this part struck me as interesting.

Reactions to openly casting guidance (repeatedly especially) will be very world dependant.

Here's an analogy : 20 years ago someone speaking loudly and gesticulating wildly to themselves (in public) would be seen as crazy and a likely sign of some kind of problem. Now? People just assume the talker is on the phone and ignore it.

Similarly, if guidance is a known thing it might be treated similarly (granted, it wouldn't be as ubiquitous as cell phone usage but still).

Also, why are they spamming guidance? They're not being paranoid if something really is out to get them!

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I dont if it has been discussed earlier on the thread, but I would suggest something similar to Effort in the Cypher system or other ''gamble-ressource-to-push-yourself-beyond-you-limits'' mechanic on the subject of skill retry:

Effort: If a player want/need to retry a skill test that failed and the situation hasnt changed since the last attempt, the player can retry the same skill check by gambling a Healing Dice. On success the player get to keep the HD, on a new failed attemp, the player lose the HD. (You could also increase the HD cost depending on the skill difficulty or add an Exhaustion level on a fail etc).

 

[pming]

Hiya!

My group seems to lean too much on Help, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, and “a roll? oh, well I’ll just roll too!” Its exasperating, and I’m searching for how I can nip it in the bud.


So I wanted to ask the great minds of ENWorld: What are the most effective ways to deal with a group that has this particular challenge?

Stop relying on rolls to determine outcome so much. Go take a page from "old skool play style" where what and how a Player describes what his PC is doing is what makes the most impact (pretty much all the impact in OSR style). There is an excellent little PDF write-up about what "old skool" means to them written by Frog God Games called "A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming": https://froggodgames.com/frogs/product/a-quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming-pdf/

You don't have to take it to quite so much of an 'extreme' because 5e does have actual rules and info for task resolution (skills, basically), but you CAN choose to interpret the 5e rules much more towards the "You roll a skill check when the outcome is uncertain" (emphasis mine).

The Players description of what their PC is doing should be used first to determine success. If the Player is arguing their character should 'succeed' in something that has nothing to do with physical stuff...say, a History check to recognize an old coat-of-arms...then it's up to the Player to point out why his PC could/should know this. (e.g., "My character has the Noble background, and, as it says in my PC's background story, he was always kept from doing the physical stuff like his brothers because he was so scrawny. I was always told to keep my nose in the books, and watch how The Great Game of the nobles was played").

If, after the Players description/reasoning the success is still in question...then the DM asks for a roll. That's important. A Player doesn't just get to blurt out "I make a [skill] roll to [XYZ]..." anytime they want. AFAIK, that's not how the system works. It is ALWAYS up to the DM on whether or not a particular die roll is to be made. Simply put...don't let your Players make rolls at their whim.

I think it boils down to the later thing the most; the OP seems to be letting the Players dictate when they can roll dice for stuff. Don't.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Yunru]

This will probably get me banned and end up negating my Patreon support.

Last I checked "Allowed to be disdainful and insulting to everyone" wasn't one of the Patreon perks.

I think people are fixating on the singular example I gave to destroy the entire idea of a DM having a say in adjudicating a situation.

On the contrary, it's just you've not given a single example where the DM has needed to adjudicate outside of what the rules say.

 

[5ekyu]

I dont if it has been discussed earlier on the thread, but I would suggest something similar to Effort in the Cypher system or other ''gamble-ressource-to-push-yourself-beyond-you-limits'' mechanic on the subject of skill retry:

Effort: If a player want/need to retry a skill test that failed and the situation hasnt changed since the last attempt, the player can retry the same skill check by gambling a Healing Dice. On success the player get to keep the HD, on a new failed attemp, the player lose the HD. (You could also increase the HD cost depending on the skill difficulty or add an Exhaustion level on a fail etc).

For a reference to cypher system - uggh blech... auto-reject proposal.

But on other notes - if i wanted more hard coded for repeat or not - it would start at proficient. Not proficient - no repeat. proficient - hey lets try it this other way.

But really, its more circumstantial than that.

 

[staticdrifter]

Last I checked "Allowed to be disdainful and insulting to everyone" wasn't one of the Patreon perks.


On the contrary, it's just you've not given a single example where the DM has needed to adjudicate outside of what the rules say.

Oh what the heck, if banishment is what you want, go ahead and banish me.

Being disdainful and insulting to everyone? Please cite this.

And yes, I did give a single example, and expounded on that example, and been met with disdain for my efforts.

Rhetorical question - Who died and made you the Speaker of the One True Way?[/QUOTE

Rhetorical, my ass! Highly insulting coming from the Jacka&% that just sent me a warning. And the second time I was accosted with that BS response, rather than a well thought out counter point.

I am pretty sure the 5e ruleset cannot be called "exacting rules and no imagination". Rather the opposite, really.

This is sheer nonsense. Actually read the rules, all of them. There are so many wholes it's not funny.

But, neither here nor there - while critique is healthy, being degrading and insulting isn't. There is no superiority to be won in this - it is all pretending to be elves, dude, and doing it with lots of stringent numbers or not isn't a major difference, morally speaking. So, let us bring the rhetoric down a couple notches, please.

Apparently there is plenty of superiority to be won in this, but only by those with the power to threaten banishment, dude.

You asked me to bring it down a couple notches at the very same time you tagged my account. You never intended to see if I would comply. You just decided to add spite!

There have been several statements I agree with within this entire post, and several that I don't. I have not been disdainful prior to the disdainful remarks posted toward me.

I never once eluded to the fact that I know more about the rules than anyone. I never once claimed any superior position, but suddenly I'm the target of derision and calumny.

Apparently, many people read negativity into suggestions they disagree with, and so all some of you can see here is negativity. Then you pile ill will on to that supposed negativity so you can accuse without guilt.

I've seen this happen all over the internet to so many people, and the people who are doing it, like yourselves, you know who you are, always think you have the right to lord over the rest.

Well, there are plenty of places to get treated like , I don't need to take it from a place I back financially.
Ban my account. I won't be back here anyway. And I will withdraw my patronage, not that you would care anyway.