When is the skill check made?

[Hriston]

I would say that this is implicit in the way the game treats tasks the core resolution mechanic. A task isn't a check and the check is divorced from the fiction. The existence of a check means there is a task being performed that has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. You can have a task without a check, but not a check without a task.

Yeah, I think we're pretty much in agreement here.

Though those spells, feats, and features do affect the check and thereby possibly the outcome of the task, there is no way for a character to know at what point in the task the check is being made (since, again, a check doesn't exist in the game world). What's going on in the game world is that a cleric is offering guidance on a task, a bard is offering inspiration in general which may be applied to a task, and lucky is just the natural state of the character which has the benefit of affecting checks. Therefore, it makes sense that these things must be in effect at the start of and by the end of the task to affect the outcome.

To me, this just doesn't follow. What about the narrative of a character that's muddling through some task and is likely to fail, only to receive some burst of inspiration or divine guidance at a critical moment that allows him/her to succeed? That type of intercession can come at any moment.

When handling it like this, which I believe is perfectly in line with the core game mechanics, the problems commonly reported with spells like guidance simply go away without a need to change the spell at all. If the task takes longer than a minute, for example, guidance just isn't going to help and it needs to be cast before the task is undertaken. This immediately reduces the number of tasks for which guidance will be useful.

I'm not exactly sure what the common problems are, other than the report of "spamming" which started these threads. It seems to me that "spamming" is kind of what cantrips are made for, so I'm still not sure how it's a problem. I'm certainly not recommending any changes to the spell. As I posted in the other thread, I think transparently known DCs, coupled with no imposed restriction on casting after a check has been rolled, immediately reduces the number of ability checks for which guidance will be (perceived to be) useful.

 

[Umbran]

No, both the spell and the ability state that the additional die roll can be applied after the d20 has been rolled.

I am talking about use of the spell or ability. You are talking about applying the die that results form the use of the spell or ability.

The cleric or bard must use their mojo to grant a die. The target may then take an action that rolls a d20. Before the result of that d20 is announced, they may add the extra die. Technically, the order is: Mojo, then action declaration, then extra die, then resolution. If you want to be really kind, for an extended action you can have Action Declaration > Mojo > extra die > resolution without busting much of anything. But that extra die is explicitly used before the player knows what the d20 roll would yield

What you seem to be missing is that there’s a design space between the die roll and the DM’s narration of success or failure that these rules exploit.

No, I am saying there explicitly isn't such a space, in terms of the rules. You can narrate what you want, but the rules are clear on the order. If the GM says what the result of the d20 roll is, it is too late to add the extra die.

 

[Hriston]

I am talking about use of the spell or ability. You are talking about applying the die that results form the use of the spell or ability.

Okay, then what's the rule, in your opinion, that prevents the use of the spell or ability after the ability check has been rolled but before the outcome is known?

The cleric or bard must use their mojo to grant a die. The target may then take an action that rolls a d20. Before the result of that d20 is announced, they may add the extra die. Technically, the order is: Mojo, then action declaration, then extra die, then resolution. If you want to be really kind, for an extended action you can have Action Declaration > Mojo > extra die > resolution without busting much of anything. But that extra die is explicitly used before the player knows what the d20 roll would yield

You seem to be agreeing with me here, except maybe for this last bit. By "what the d20 roll would yield", do you mean whether the DM says the task succeeds or fails, in which case we are in complete agreement? Or do you mean the resulting number of the d20 roll, in which case you're disagreeing not only with me, but with what's explicitly written in the features under discussion?

No, I am saying there explicitly isn't such a space, in terms of the rules. You can narrate what you want, but the rules are clear on the order. If the GM says what the result of the d20 roll is, it is too late to add the extra die.

See, this is weird. I've stated numerous times that my position is that the extra die can be used until the DM narrates success or failure and that the design space I'm talking about is that space between the die roll and the DM narrating success or failure. You deny there's such a space, but then you repeat back what I've been saying.

 

[Harzel]

To me, this just doesn't follow. What about the narrative of a character that's muddling through some task and is likely to fail, only to receive some burst of inspiration or divine guidance at a critical moment that allows him/her to succeed? That type of intercession can come at any moment.

There are two things bundled here that I would separate. One is the 'burst' of inspiration/guidance notion; that seems like a good narrative reason for allowing the inspiration/guidance to be applied regardless of the duration of the task. The other is the notion that when a character is 'likely to fail', they will be aware of that and that the player knowing the d20 roll is a good model for that.

Ok, now a weird thing has just happened to me. When I started the last sentence of the previous paragraph, I thought I was about to argue against, e.g., the bard being allowed to grant inspiration after the d20 roll. However, if one embraces the 'burst of inspiration' notion and justifies the RAW 'player can see the d20 roll before using inspiration' as 'character suspects they are failing and seeks extraordinary assistance', then disallowing the bard granting inspiration after the d20 roll would mean drawing a distinction between the character doing the task suspecting they were failing and the bard suspecting they were failing. Provided that the fictional situation is such that the bard and the other character can communicate, that seems like a fine line to be drawing (particularly in a cooperative, group-oriented game).

I'm not exactly sure what the common problems are, other than the report of "spamming" which started these threads. It seems to me that "spamming" is kind of what cantrips are made for, so I'm still not sure how it's a problem. I'm certainly not recommending any changes to the spell. As I posted in the other thread, I think transparently known DCs, coupled with no imposed restriction on casting after a check has been rolled, immediately reduces the number of ability checks for which guidance will be (perceived to be) useful.

Two things here. First, the PH says this about Bardic Inspiration.

The creature can wait until after it rolls the d20 before deciding to use the Bardic Inspiration die, but must decide before the DM says whether the roll succeeds or fails.

Disclosing DCs renders the second clause moot, which to me means this contravenes RAW. That's fine, but seems like it should be acknowledged.

Second, your 'solution' to guidance spamming shows misunderstanding of the dislike for it (in a way that, frankly, seems almost willful). The issue is not the image of the cleric wandering about constantly muttering under their breath requesting a minor divine intercession (although that's eye-rolling by itself), nor is it the actual rolling of d4s; it's having a d4 added to every. single. ability. check. Being able to check whether you actually needed the boost before rolling the extra die is completely irrelevant (and actually probably just complicates the process by adding a decision point).

 

[FrogReaver]

There are two things bundled here that I would separate. One is the 'burst' of inspiration/guidance notion; that seems like a good narrative reason for allowing the inspiration/guidance to be applied regardless of the duration of the task. The other is the notion that when a character is 'likely to fail', they will be aware of that and that the player knowing the d20 roll is a good model for that.

Ok, now a weird thing has just happened to me. When I started the last sentence of the previous paragraph, I thought I was about to argue against, e.g., the bard being allowed to grant inspiration after the d20 roll. However, if one embraces the 'burst of inspiration' notion and justifies the RAW 'player can see the d20 roll before using inspiration' as 'character suspects they are failing and seeks extraordinary assistance', then disallowing the bard granting inspiration after the d20 roll would mean drawing a distinction between the character doing the task suspecting they were failing and the bard suspecting they were failing. Provided that the fictional situation is such that the bard and the other character can communicate, that seems like a fine line to be drawing (particularly in a cooperative, group-oriented game).



Two things here. First, the PH says this about Bardic Inspiration.



Disclosing DCs renders the second clause moot, which to me means this contravenes RAW. That's fine, but seems like it should be acknowledged.

Second, your 'solution' to guidance spamming shows misunderstanding of the dislike for it (in a way that, frankly, seems almost willful). The issue is not the image of the cleric wandering about constantly muttering under their breath requesting a minor divine intercession (although that's eye-rolling by itself), nor is it the actual rolling of d4s; it's having a d4 added to every. single. ability. check. Being able to check whether you actually needed the boost before rolling the extra die is completely irrelevant (and actually probably just complicates the process by adding a decision point).

If the complaint is merely that a d4 gets added to every ability check then adding one only to those that need it added does get around the direct issue.

However, the real issue is that adding a d4 to a significant number of ability checks is too strong.

My concern is that the d4 doesn't actually come up nearly as often in my games that it does in the OP's. That tells me it's how his games are ran that's causing the issue with guidance. So he can either change how he runs his games and have guidance work just fine in them - or he can greatly modify or remove guidance from his games.

The thing is if he refuses to change his game or explain how his games are working then we really can't evaluate his proposed fixes or propose fixes to him.

 

[iserith]

To me, this just doesn't follow. What about the narrative of a character that's muddling through some task and is likely to fail, only to receive some burst of inspiration or divine guidance at a critical moment that allows him/her to succeed? That type of intercession can come at any moment.

Any moment within the duration of the spell, provided the spell was cast at the start of the task in my view and doesn't run out before the task is complete. Again, the check isn't a thing in the fiction. In order to get the benefit of the spell, the task must take place within the duration of the spell. A 10-minute task won't benefit from a 1-minute duration guidance spell, even if the caster spams it 10 times.

I'm not exactly sure what the common problems are, other than the report of "spamming" which started these threads. It seems to me that "spamming" is kind of what cantrips are made for, so I'm still not sure how it's a problem. I'm certainly not recommending any changes to the spell. As I posted in the other thread, I think transparently known DCs, coupled with no imposed restriction on casting after a check has been rolled, immediately reduces the number of ability checks for which guidance will be (perceived to be) useful.

If I understand you correctly, casting after the roll would still be a house rule though, on par with making the spell a 1st-level slot or otherwise altering it. I believe my take is not a house rule. It's how the game is meant to work. Not that I'm opposed necessarily to house ruling. It's just that I find concerns about this spell in particular is always a clue to me as to how people run their games. If people have problems with it, I can figure out pretty easily how they think of tasks and checks, generally speaking, and whether players are asking to make or declaring they are making ability checks.

The spamming issue comes from not assigning a time to the task and, usually in my experience, thinking of tasks as checks.

 

[iserith]

Disclosing DCs renders the second clause moot, which to me means this contravenes RAW. That's fine, but seems like it should be acknowledged.

Yeah, I disclose the DC at the time I ask for a roll, so the "you must declare you're using the die before the outcome" bit is kind of pointless in my games. In truth, I prefer players to spend resources from an informed position, so I like them knowing if the DC is even achievable or how likely it is to hit if they spend the resource before they make the decision.

The issue is not the image of the cleric wandering about constantly muttering under their breath requesting a minor divine intercession (although that's eye-rolling by itself), nor is it the actual rolling of d4s; it's having a d4 added to every. single. ability. check. Being able to check whether you actually needed the boost before rolling the extra die is completely irrelevant (and actually probably just complicates the process by adding a decision point).

Right, while I don't particularly care if players are adding d4s to every check (good for them), some DMs do and that's usually because they are not taking the time the task takes to complete into consideration in relation to the duration of the spell or feature. Once they do, then this goes away and guidance only gets put on tasks that take 1 minute or less, greatly reducing the problem they are reporting.

 

[5ekyu]

For tasks that take time, when is the skill check made? Is it made over that whole duration? Or at the end? Or...?

One reason I ask is that in another thread, a few posters suggested that a spell like guidance should not work on a task that takes longer than one minute. Implying that the check is made over the duration of the task, rather than at the end. (Because, were it at the end, then couldn't the guidance caster wait until just before the end?)

I think this interpretation leads to imagining that guidance is in operation over the whole 1 minute; but how about bardic inspiration? With inspiration, one has 10 minutes to use the die. I think this interpretation means something like - the task would need to start and resolve completely inside that 10 minutes. Looking then at Lucky, I think this interpretation means that the feat is used at the last possible moment - the instant of task completion. Because, to be consistent, I think we want all the buffs and re-rolls to be occurring inside the task duration.

A residual question is, is it that only one cast of guidance and one inspiration die can be used for a given task? What I mean is, could a magical initiate cast guidance at the start of a 2 minute task, and then recast it 30 seconds in, and then again after another 30 seconds, and then again. Thus with four casts spanning the whole 2 minutes.

In my game, if a task takes longer than z minute I use an e tended check race to three successes and fails, similar to death saves. Fails not only count against the three but provide a setback that either forces a change or gives disad on subsequent checks. So, that means 3-5 checks over the course of the activity (generally I use 1/4 the expected total time) and Guidance can be used during each check but its individual casting.

I have zero problem with Guidance on longer tasks because often hold-up and succes are determined by one right or wrong decision followed by a period of work... I dont see guidance as much as physical help with the work but as an inspiration or nudge in the right directions.

So, even if I just regarded an hour long effort as one roll instead of 3-5 rolls made every 15m - no cognitive problem with guidance working.

 

[Hriston]

There are two things bundled here that I would separate. One is the 'burst' of inspiration/guidance notion; that seems like a good narrative reason for allowing the inspiration/guidance to be applied regardless of the duration of the task. The other is the notion that when a character is 'likely to fail', they will be aware of that and that the player knowing the d20 roll is a good model for that.

Ok, now a weird thing has just happened to me. When I started the last sentence of the previous paragraph, I thought I was about to argue against, e.g., the bard being allowed to grant inspiration after the d20 roll. However, if one embraces the 'burst of inspiration' notion and justifies the RAW 'player can see the d20 roll before using inspiration' as 'character suspects they are failing and seeks extraordinary assistance', then disallowing the bard granting inspiration after the d20 roll would mean drawing a distinction between the character doing the task suspecting they were failing and the bard suspecting they were failing. Provided that the fictional situation is such that the bard and the other character can communicate, that seems like a fine line to be drawing (particularly in a cooperative, group-oriented game).

I agree with all of this, and I appreciate your willingness to think about this with an open mind.

Two things here. First, the PH says this about Bardic Inspiration.



Disclosing DCs renders the second clause moot, which to me means this contravenes RAW. That's fine, but seems like it should be acknowledged.

I don’t think keeping DCs secret is the default. The DM saying whether the check succeeds or fails in this case is merely the completion of the basic pattern of play with the DM performing his/her role of narrating the outcome. It means the player’s action has been resolved. I don’t think it’s necessarily supposed to be a guessing game.

Second, your 'solution' to guidance spamming shows misunderstanding of the dislike for it (in a way that, frankly, seems almost willful). The issue is not the image of the cleric wandering about constantly muttering under their breath requesting a minor divine intercession (although that's eye-rolling by itself), nor is it the actual rolling of d4s; it's having a d4 added to every. single. ability. check. Being able to check whether you actually needed the boost before rolling the extra die is completely irrelevant (and actually probably just complicates the process by adding a decision point).

There are many ability checks that can’t be helped by guidance or don’t need help. That takes a big chunk out of every single ability check right there. Then even in the subset of checks where it can make a difference, it won’t always succeed. If the DM thinks it’s making things too easy, s/he could always increase the difficulty.

 

[clearstream]

My concern is that the d4 doesn't actually come up nearly as often in my games that it does in the OP's. That tells me it's how his games are ran that's causing the issue with guidance. So he can either change how he runs his games and have guidance work just fine in them - or he can greatly modify or remove guidance from his games.

The thing is if he refuses to change his game or explain how his games are working then we really can't evaluate his proposed fixes or propose fixes to him.

I wonder if it also comes down to players? As I've stated before, mine are crunch-focused and if they have a thing, they will use that thing. So the way I run it is that if a player with guidance says they use guidance, and it is applicable per RAW, then I allow it to be applicable. I have two players with the cantrip, and they are different in their behaviour. One always applies it if permitted, the other applies it to checks they care about on a character level.

If the task takes longer than a minute, for example, guidance just isn't going to help and it needs to be cast before the task is undertaken. This immediately reduces the number of tasks for which guidance will be useful.

If guidance is cast and they roll a skill check within 1 minute of the cast they get the benefit. If not they don't. It has nothing to do with whether they just started their action or just finished it.

Is there anything in RAW that clearly states when a check occurs in relation to the in-world acts needed to complete a task? And, same question, about whether guidance couldn't be recast repeatedly to span the duration (which, if the check occurs at some point, means that some instance of guidance should be running at that point)?

Reflecting on how I run the game, I have inclined toward supposing that a check happens at a single point in time, at the end of the necessary acts. That is because say a task requires acts A, B, C and D. If a character does A, B and C, I would rule that they do not get a check, because they failed to carry out D. For me then, that implies that a check is made at a point in time - at the completion of D.