When is the skill check made?

[FrogReaver]

As long as you understand that you’re making that up, and it isn’t by any means RAW, have fun.

Some things don't need explicitly stated.

 

[Charlaquin]

Some things don't need explicitly stated.

I agree with you there. Honestly, I don’t even think a DM needs to make an explicit decision “when” the roll actually takes place. Just decide whether actions that take longer than a minute (or 10) to complete can benefit from Guidance (or Bardic Inspiration) or not. No need to get technical about what point in the process the spell is being cast, just assume it is being cast whenever it needs to be to work,

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Some things don't need explicitly stated.

Right. It doesn’t need to be explicitly stated that the check doesn’t correspond to a specific moment in an attempt to do something, or that buffs apply to the roll if the buff is applied for the purpose of doing so, within a time where you’d have to get pedantic in order to rule otherwise.

Because if you have to get pedantic to rule a certain way, you certainly aren’t just playing 5e as it’s written and intended to be read.

 

[FrogReaver]

Right. It doesn’t need to be explicitly stated that the check doesn’t correspond to a specific moment in an attempt to do something, or that buffs apply to the roll if the buff is applied for the purpose of doing so, within a time where you’d have to get pedantic in order to rule otherwise.

Because if you have to get pedantic to rule a certain way, you certainly aren’t just playing 5e as it’s written and intended to be read.

Interesting how opinions on how something is written and intended to be read can vary so drastically between 2 people.

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree with you there. Honestly, I don’t even think a DM needs to make an explicit decision “when” the roll actually takes place. Just decide whether actions that take longer than a minute (or 10) to complete can benefit from Guidance (or Bardic Inspiration) or not. No need to get technical about what point in the process the spell is being cast, just assume it is being cast whenever it needs to be to work,

Or the thing that doesn't need explicitly stated is that skill checks should tie into an actual moment in the in game fiction.

You see with your definition you are having to assume a lot more that isn't there - whether guidance can effect things that take longer than a minute - when by rule it obviously can - because by rule it depends on when the check occurs - and the only way for that stipulation to make sense is if the check occurs at a defined fictional moment.

 

[iserith]

I agree with you there. Honestly, I don’t even think a DM needs to make an explicit decision “when” the roll actually takes place. Just decide whether actions that take longer than a minute (or 10) to complete can benefit from Guidance (or Bardic Inspiration) or not. No need to get technical about what point in the process the spell is being cast, just assume it is being cast whenever it needs to be to work,

I imagine positions on this matter are also influenced by concerns over "taking something away" from players that they ought to have a right to. Imagine that you've been playing the game while conflating actions and checks, and probably your players are asking to or declaring to make checks. Also, you probably don't think much about the time a task takes - sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. In this paradigm, I can't see a reason NOT to take guidance and spam it unless you absolutely need to do something else. And to the extent it's a legal option in the book, it's your right as a player to take it and use it as much as you like, right? You don't want to be the kind of DM who just takes stuff away from players, do you? Do you hate players succeeding or what?

 

[Shiroiken]

I don't think there's an official ruling on this, because it's a bit metaphysical. When you undertake a task, your ability check determines how well you perform that task, so it applies to the entirety of that task - but that doesn't dictate when, in in-game terms, the skill check takes place, because the character in game isn't making a skill check - they're simply performing a task.

This is pretty much the key to the question: the check occurs when the DM decides the check occurs. The mechanics interacting with the task at hand are entirely at the DM's discretion, based on how they view the task and the effect attempting to modify the check.

My personal view: a check occurs when I feel the outcome actually matters, and any mechanical effect that might alter the outcome of that check must exist during the entirety of the task. If a player wants a general idea of the duration, I will provide it as best I can (some tasks have a duration based on the result of the roll, so I'll give the maximum).

 

[clearstream]

As long as you understand that you’re making that up, and it isn’t by any means RAW, have fun.

Also @iserith. Thinking about RAW, PHB174 reads that "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure." DMG237 described ability checks being "used for" various in game acts. These kinds of descriptions tie ability checks to creature actions within the fiction. The wording of guidance describes a creature being imbued with the power to add 1d4 to an ability check of its choice, before or after making the check. Bardic inspiration plainly describes creatures as making ability checks. The language seems to express that the creature is conscious of doing something directly tied to the check (e.g. "it can wait until after it rolls the d20").

So to my reading the RAW endorses a view that the event that triggers the roll, happens in the fiction. I don't mean to say that this is the best way to play it: only that it could feel better to move forward acknowledging what is in the RAW and exploring alternatives from there.

 

[iserith]

Also @iserith. Thinking about RAW, PHB174 reads that "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure." DMG237 described ability checks being "used for" various in game acts. These kinds of descriptions tie ability checks to creature actions within the fiction. The wording of guidance describes a creature being imbued with the power to add 1d4 to an ability check of its choice, before or after making the check. Bardic inspiration plainly describes creatures as making ability checks. The language seems to express that the creature is conscious of doing something directly tied to the check (e.g. "it can wait until after it rolls the d20").

So to my reading the RAW endorses a view that the event that triggers the roll, happens in the fiction. I don't mean to say that this is the best way to play it: only that it could feel better to move forward acknowledging what is in the RAW and exploring alternatives from there.

The language of the books is sloppy, perhaps due to the "natural language" design conceit, but the core concepts are very clear in my view. And if one understands the core concepts, then everything that follows makes a lot more sense, even if the language is sloppy: A task is not an ability check, nor an ability check a task. You can have a task without a check, but not a check without a task. Characters aren't rolling dice and consulting character sheets in the game world. Players are doing that at the table. The ability check doesn't exist in the game world. DMs call for ability checks, not players.

I repeat these concepts a lot because they really are fundamental to understanding the game in my view. While the game is playable without understanding this (or even disagreeing with it), it's often the case, as evidenced by many forum threads, not adhering to these concepts can lead to undesirable outcomes.

Consider: I have absolutely no spamming of the guidance spell in my games and never have because of my understanding of the core concepts above. Guidance works for tasks that take a minute or less, which means the number of tasks for which it will apply is inherently limited. But you do appear to have a problem with the guidance spell in your game. In a pragmatic sense (if nothing else), what does that tell you about your interpretation?

 

[FrogReaver]

Consider: I have absolutely no spamming of the guidance spell in my games and never have because of my understanding of the core concepts above. Guidance works for tasks that take a minute or less, which means the number of tasks for which it will apply is inherently limited. But you do appear to have a problem with the guidance spell in your game. In a pragmatic sense (if nothing else), what does that tell you about your interpretation?

For someone that says they play by the rules you make alot up as you go along. Nowhere does the guidance spell claim it doesn't work on actions that take longer than a minute.

The whole concept of guidance spam - that the cleric keeps casting it until the check is made to ensure that check gets the guidance benefit added to it.

So the reason you don't have guidance spam in your game is because you've houseruled it out!