When is the skill check made?

[FrogReaver]

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.

I'm pretty crunch focused and I played a cleric with my group and it didn't come up nearly all the time that I imagined it would.

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)?

Raw doesn't say when skill checks occur in relation to the in game task. Guidance can be cast repeatedly. Keep in mind you are the one that calls for the check. My advice is don't shoehorn yourself into any specific - checks occur at beginning or checks occur at ending of tasks - there will inevitably be times you discover that work better one way or the other and you need the freedom to specify how it works for each individual task IMO.

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.

Let's consider a simple example of a room in a dungeon with a 4 player party. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric Wizard

Let's say the points of interest in the room are a desk in the room with some papers on it and some runes on the wall and no other doors.

In my game,

The rogue goes to investigate the desk. The wizard goes to investigate the runes. The fighter watches the door they came through for danger. The cleric casts guidance on one of them. There's no chance for him to cast guidance on all 3.

In your game,

I imagine it's everyone stands around while the rogue (or wizard) sequentially investigates the runes and then the desk. Guidance gets cast on each action and someone helps each action. Then when enemies come wandering by you give the one closest to the door a perception check but you let the cleric retroactively cast guidance on him.

Conclusion

That's what I think the difference is. What prevents my players from playing like yours? Find a way to make in-game time important or at least have the players feel like it might be important. What prevents your players from playing like mine and still getting guidance on everything? Because they sequentially work through areas having the person with the highest check do something and even if they concurrently instead of sequentially performed checks in a scene - you aren't forcing the checks to be resolved in such a way that guidance can only be cast on one.

I believe that you are allowing your players to sequentially work through tasks in a scene in such a way that each task where applicable can always get both the help action and guidance used on it with absolutely no repercussions for the extra time spent by going through all tasks sequentially.

 

[FrogReaver]

@clearstream out of curiosity, how large is your group?

 

[clearstream]

I imagine it's everyone stands around while the rogue (or wizard) sequentially investigates the runes and then the desk. Guidance gets cast on each action and someone helps each action. Then when enemies come wandering by you give the one closest to the door a perception check but you let the cleric retroactively cast guidance on him.

There are six player characters. Two with guidance. Yes, when possible they perform their tasks sequentially, rather than in parallel. I don't allow retroactive casts.

 

[FrogReaver]

There are six player characters. Two with guidance. Yes, when possible they perform their tasks sequentially, rather than in parallel. I don't allow retroactive casts.

And there's no penalty for sequential task resolution taking longer than parallel task resolution?

 

[Maxperson]

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?)

It's both in my opinion. You are performing the skill over the entire duration, but only roll at the end. If you are interrupted in the middle of longer tasks, you may never get to that roll. However, if you do get to that roll, a guidance cast at any point will make the result better.

 

[clearstream]

And there's no penalty for sequential task resolution taking longer than parallel task resolution?

That depends what else is going on. I'm not generally running dungeons, but rather open world campaigns. It often happens that things that are okay in the compressed setting of the dungeon become problematic when the time frame expands. Maybe that is what is happening here.

In any kind of campaign I dislike placing artificial pressures on players. Stuff is going on in the background, of course, yet it is very often the case that it feels implausible for a few minutes more to matter. Clearly YMMV. Still, it is worth thinking about that context.

 

[Hriston]

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.

I realize you've called out the bolded part as your personal opinion, but, to be clear, it's something you're adding to the requirement for using the extra die stated in the spell itself, which is only that the extra die must be rolled and added within a minute after casting, as long as the caster maintains concentration.

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.

Why? The duration only applies to rolling and adding the extra die, not to performing a task or even making an ability check.

Your prohibition against spamming having an effect also seems forced to me. Why wouldn't continuously casting guidance on a creature benefit the resolution of any task undertaken by the creature as long as the spell is up, provided the extra die is added under the duration of one of the castings?

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.

I'm still not seeing any prohibition against a declaration to cast guidance immediately following an ability check being rolled. Remember, we're still in step 2 of the basic pattern of play, "The players describe what they want to do." Step 3 is "The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions." We haven't gotten there yet. The ability check is part of step 2. The player of the caster is then describing his/her character casting guidance at the critical moment. I don't see any reason why that declaration shouldn't feed into the resolution mechanic which then informs the DM's resulting narration when we eventually arrive at step 3.

 

[FrogReaver]

That depends what else is going on. I'm not generally running dungeons, but rather open world campaigns. It often happens that things that are okay in the compressed setting of the dungeon become problematic when the time frame expands. Maybe that is what is happening here.

In any kind of campaign I dislike placing artificial pressures on players. Stuff is going on in the background, of course, yet it is very often the case that it feels implausible for a few minutes more to matter. Clearly YMMV. Still, it is worth thinking about that context.

That's fair. I'm curious do you allow auto success on certain tasks if the PC's put enough time into them?

If you are doing an overworld campaign then how do you handle overland travel and checks that come up during it? Because in my campaigns those are still parallel.

Is it reasonable that checks are only taking a few minutes? Especially investigation? Or should they typically take quite a bit longer depending on the ask?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The buff just has to be used before the roll is made. That’s all that matters in terms of rules.

In fiction, there is no particular reason that you can’t provide guidance at the beginning of a task regardless of how long it will take.

 

[FrogReaver]

The buff just has to be used before the roll is made. That’s all that matters in terms of rules.

In fiction, there is no particular reason that you can’t provide guidance at the beginning of a task regardless of how long it will take.

But the buff can't come 10 minutes before the roll is made - as guidance only lasts 1 minute.