When is the skill check made?

[clearstream]

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?

There are two separate concerns here. One concern is as to what RAW says? One can denigrate the language in RAW - possibly for good reasons - but that doesn't address what the rules state as written.

Another concern is as to what problems arise depending on how one decides to play. As I noted, I was not making a judgement about whether RAW captures the best way to play it. My claim was limited to what the RAW says. I'm still undecided about the best way to play it.

 

[iserith]

There are two separate concerns here. One concern is as to what RAW says? One can denigrate the language in RAW - possibly for good reasons - but that doesn't address what the rules state as written.

Another concern is as to what problems arise depending on how one decides to play. As I noted, I was not judging that RAW captures the best way to play it. My claim was limited to what the RAW says. I'm still undecided about the best way to play it.

That's fair, but it could also be said that the game isn't meant to be played RAW in the first place so concerns about RAW are not all that useful. The natural language (even if sometimes the rules reference jargon) would mean that if one takes specific lines out of the context of the core concepts it may not make sense. Which is what I think you revealed in this post. But if one filters those specific lines through the core concepts, thereby examining the rules as a whole instead of in parts, then everything falls right into place and as a side effect solves the issue you have with guidance.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's fair, but it could also be said that the game isn't meant to be played RAW in the first place so concerns about RAW are not all that useful. The natural language (even if sometimes the rules reference jargon) would mean that if one takes specific lines out of the context of the core concepts it may not make sense. Which is what I think you revealed in this post. But if one filters those specific lines through the core concepts, then everything falls right into place and as a side effect solves the issue you have with guidance.

Unless one doesn't really have the core concepts down to a science as well as they think they do

 

[Maxperson]

Some things don't need explicitly stated.

They do if you want it to be a rule. Otherwise it's a situation without a rule that requires a DM ruling.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

Page 206 of the PHB.

"The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however."

Spamming guidance will not add when it comes to a single action resulting in a ability skill check.

 

[FrogReaver]

They do if you want it to be a rule. Otherwise it's a situation without a rule that requires a DM ruling.

And when the DM has only 1 possible good ruling he can make then that ruling might as well be on the same footing as RAW.

 

[FrogReaver]

Page 206 of the PHB.

"The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however."

Spamming guidance will not add when it comes to a single action resulting in a ability skill check.

I don't think anyone has made the claim that casting guidance twice on something gives that creature a +2d4 benefit?

 

[iserith]

Page 206 of the PHB.

"The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however."

Spamming guidance will not add when it comes to a single action resulting in a ability skill check.

The spamming issue is really related to trying to have guidance cover a task that takes longer than the duration of the spell though, not stacking the d4 bonus (if that's what you mean). Like spamming guidance while doing hours of overland travel to get a constant d4 to any ability check that resolves the outcome of a task of foraging.

 

[Maxperson]

And when the DM has only 1 possible good ruling he can make then that ruling might as well be on the same footing as RAW.

I've seen at least two possible good rulings already in this thread.

1) The check happens at the end of the action and if the guidance duration covers the entire action it works.

2) The check happens at the end of the action and as long as the guidance duration is present for part of the action, it works.

I skipped some posts, so it's entirely possible that there are more good rulings.

I see 3) The check happens at the beginning and guidance works, as another good ruling.

 

[clearstream]

Page 206 of the PHB.

"The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however."

Spamming guidance will not add when it comes to a single action resulting in a ability skill check.

It won't add, agreed, but the question here is whether it would apply? That is, if a task takes 2 minutes, can some number of casts of guidance (might be one, might be a non-overlapping chain) buff it?