Under what conditions would I NOT add my Proficiency Bonus to a Spell Attack Roll (or Saving Throw DC)?
$begingroup$
For physical attacks, the scenario where you don't add your Proficiency bonus to an attack roll is relatively clear-cut: when you don't have proficiency in a weapon. If you're a Sorcerer trying to wield a Rapier, with a DEX bonus of +3, then your Attack Roll is +3; no Proficiency added.
However, for spellcasters, I can't find a single scenario where the Proficiency Bonus does not get added to a spell, either to the Attack Roll or the corresponding Saving Throw DC, except, of course, for spells which don't have an Attack Roll or Saving Throw.
Obviously, I respect the balancing implications of this choice: if, for example, things like Racial feature spells/cantrips didn't scale with a character's Proficiency bonus, they would end up being very weak as a character leveled up, whereas with the proficiency bonus, a Level 20 Fighter casting their racial spell Burning Hands can at least expect to challenge the Saving Throw capabilities of their targets, even if the damage is pretty pitiful relative to the kinds of creatures that would pose a meaningful challenge at their level.
But it is strange to me that there appears to be an entire class of features in the game where there's no variance as to whether a character's Proficiency Bonus ought to be added, or not. So it begs the question:
Does there exist some corner-case scenario in 5th Edition D&D where a character would not add their Proficiency Bonus to the Attack Roll or Saving Throw DC of a spell they cast? Or does such a scenario simply not exist?
dnd-5e spells proficiency
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For physical attacks, the scenario where you don't add your Proficiency bonus to an attack roll is relatively clear-cut: when you don't have proficiency in a weapon. If you're a Sorcerer trying to wield a Rapier, with a DEX bonus of +3, then your Attack Roll is +3; no Proficiency added.
However, for spellcasters, I can't find a single scenario where the Proficiency Bonus does not get added to a spell, either to the Attack Roll or the corresponding Saving Throw DC, except, of course, for spells which don't have an Attack Roll or Saving Throw.
Obviously, I respect the balancing implications of this choice: if, for example, things like Racial feature spells/cantrips didn't scale with a character's Proficiency bonus, they would end up being very weak as a character leveled up, whereas with the proficiency bonus, a Level 20 Fighter casting their racial spell Burning Hands can at least expect to challenge the Saving Throw capabilities of their targets, even if the damage is pretty pitiful relative to the kinds of creatures that would pose a meaningful challenge at their level.
But it is strange to me that there appears to be an entire class of features in the game where there's no variance as to whether a character's Proficiency Bonus ought to be added, or not. So it begs the question:
Does there exist some corner-case scenario in 5th Edition D&D where a character would not add their Proficiency Bonus to the Attack Roll or Saving Throw DC of a spell they cast? Or does such a scenario simply not exist?
dnd-5e spells proficiency
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For physical attacks, the scenario where you don't add your Proficiency bonus to an attack roll is relatively clear-cut: when you don't have proficiency in a weapon. If you're a Sorcerer trying to wield a Rapier, with a DEX bonus of +3, then your Attack Roll is +3; no Proficiency added.
However, for spellcasters, I can't find a single scenario where the Proficiency Bonus does not get added to a spell, either to the Attack Roll or the corresponding Saving Throw DC, except, of course, for spells which don't have an Attack Roll or Saving Throw.
Obviously, I respect the balancing implications of this choice: if, for example, things like Racial feature spells/cantrips didn't scale with a character's Proficiency bonus, they would end up being very weak as a character leveled up, whereas with the proficiency bonus, a Level 20 Fighter casting their racial spell Burning Hands can at least expect to challenge the Saving Throw capabilities of their targets, even if the damage is pretty pitiful relative to the kinds of creatures that would pose a meaningful challenge at their level.
But it is strange to me that there appears to be an entire class of features in the game where there's no variance as to whether a character's Proficiency Bonus ought to be added, or not. So it begs the question:
Does there exist some corner-case scenario in 5th Edition D&D where a character would not add their Proficiency Bonus to the Attack Roll or Saving Throw DC of a spell they cast? Or does such a scenario simply not exist?
dnd-5e spells proficiency
$endgroup$
For physical attacks, the scenario where you don't add your Proficiency bonus to an attack roll is relatively clear-cut: when you don't have proficiency in a weapon. If you're a Sorcerer trying to wield a Rapier, with a DEX bonus of +3, then your Attack Roll is +3; no Proficiency added.
However, for spellcasters, I can't find a single scenario where the Proficiency Bonus does not get added to a spell, either to the Attack Roll or the corresponding Saving Throw DC, except, of course, for spells which don't have an Attack Roll or Saving Throw.
Obviously, I respect the balancing implications of this choice: if, for example, things like Racial feature spells/cantrips didn't scale with a character's Proficiency bonus, they would end up being very weak as a character leveled up, whereas with the proficiency bonus, a Level 20 Fighter casting their racial spell Burning Hands can at least expect to challenge the Saving Throw capabilities of their targets, even if the damage is pretty pitiful relative to the kinds of creatures that would pose a meaningful challenge at their level.
But it is strange to me that there appears to be an entire class of features in the game where there's no variance as to whether a character's Proficiency Bonus ought to be added, or not. So it begs the question:
Does there exist some corner-case scenario in 5th Edition D&D where a character would not add their Proficiency Bonus to the Attack Roll or Saving Throw DC of a spell they cast? Or does such a scenario simply not exist?
dnd-5e spells proficiency
dnd-5e spells proficiency
edited 9 hours ago
V2Blast
23.7k376150
23.7k376150
asked 9 hours ago
XiremaXirema
21k263121
21k263121
add a comment |
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I can't provide evidence to confirm a negative, but in my experience (thousands of hours of DMing and playing), such a scenario does not exist. If a character is casting a spell personally rather than via an item, they will use their proficiency bonus. Some items - scrolls and wands are the most common - have a fixed DC; the character activating the item has no effect.
By contrast, lacking the other half of that equation can exist. A Thief Rogue with Use Magic Device does not have a spellcasting ability, and therefore uses +0 for magic items that may require one.
From the Basic Rules, Chapter 14, Activating an Item, Spells:
A magic item, such as certain staffs, may require you to use your own spellcasting ability when you cast a spell from the item. If you have more than one spellcasting ability, you choose which one to use with the item. If you don't have a spellcasting ability - perhaps you're a rogue with the Use Magic Device feature - your spellcasting ability modifier is +0 for the item, and your proficiency bonus does apply.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Spell scrolls have fixed attack/save modifiers
The attack modifier or saving throw DC of a spell cast from a scroll is dependent on the level of the scroll, rather than the spellcasting ability or proficiency bonus of the caster. Looking at the modifiers given for each scroll level, they seem more or less in line with what would be expected from the proficiency bonus + spellcasting modifier for a caster whose highest level spell slots are of that level. So the intent seems to be that a spell scroll is using someone's proficiency bonus, it just isn't using yours.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No such scenario exists for known, prepared, or innate spells.
If a spellcaster is intrinsically capable of casting a spell due to a class or racial feature that lets them know or prepare a spell or cast it innately, their proficiency bonus always applies to their spell attack bonus and spell save DC. For magic items or spell scrolls, there may be a fixed bonus that doesn't benefit from proficiency (such as +7 for a 3rd level spell scroll).
Note that with weapons, if you're proficient you can attack well; if you're not proficient, you can attack poorly, but nonetheless you can attack. With spells, however, either you can cast the spell or you simply can't at all. There's not really such a thing as being able to "sort of" cast a spell, except the scenarios covered in the previous paragraph.
Notably, spells such as counterspell and dispel magic require spellcasting ability checks, which by default no spellcaster is proficient in. However, Abjuration Wizards of 10th level get to add their proficiency bonus even to those checks. This implies that Abjurers are so good at those spells that they have become proficient in executing them better than other wizards, yet other wizards can still execute them to lesser effect. These aren't attacks or saves, but they indicate a niche where proficiency doesn't usually apply but could under certain circumstances.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Because you want to make it easier.
You are dropping the fireball on the cleric and pulling the punch is
enough in general.You are somehow not fully in control of yourself and must throw a
spell at an ally, but can make such decisions.- You are casting a spell on a crowd for show and want them to
succeed.
New contributor
$endgroup$
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. Can you cite any relevant rules to support your answer's claims?
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is suggesting that adding the proficiency bonus is optional. That’s a central premise of your answer and should be supported, since it’s not obvious that it is an thing a player can choose to not use.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
50 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142674%2funder-what-conditions-would-i-not-add-my-proficiency-bonus-to-a-spell-attack-rol%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I can't provide evidence to confirm a negative, but in my experience (thousands of hours of DMing and playing), such a scenario does not exist. If a character is casting a spell personally rather than via an item, they will use their proficiency bonus. Some items - scrolls and wands are the most common - have a fixed DC; the character activating the item has no effect.
By contrast, lacking the other half of that equation can exist. A Thief Rogue with Use Magic Device does not have a spellcasting ability, and therefore uses +0 for magic items that may require one.
From the Basic Rules, Chapter 14, Activating an Item, Spells:
A magic item, such as certain staffs, may require you to use your own spellcasting ability when you cast a spell from the item. If you have more than one spellcasting ability, you choose which one to use with the item. If you don't have a spellcasting ability - perhaps you're a rogue with the Use Magic Device feature - your spellcasting ability modifier is +0 for the item, and your proficiency bonus does apply.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I can't provide evidence to confirm a negative, but in my experience (thousands of hours of DMing and playing), such a scenario does not exist. If a character is casting a spell personally rather than via an item, they will use their proficiency bonus. Some items - scrolls and wands are the most common - have a fixed DC; the character activating the item has no effect.
By contrast, lacking the other half of that equation can exist. A Thief Rogue with Use Magic Device does not have a spellcasting ability, and therefore uses +0 for magic items that may require one.
From the Basic Rules, Chapter 14, Activating an Item, Spells:
A magic item, such as certain staffs, may require you to use your own spellcasting ability when you cast a spell from the item. If you have more than one spellcasting ability, you choose which one to use with the item. If you don't have a spellcasting ability - perhaps you're a rogue with the Use Magic Device feature - your spellcasting ability modifier is +0 for the item, and your proficiency bonus does apply.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I can't provide evidence to confirm a negative, but in my experience (thousands of hours of DMing and playing), such a scenario does not exist. If a character is casting a spell personally rather than via an item, they will use their proficiency bonus. Some items - scrolls and wands are the most common - have a fixed DC; the character activating the item has no effect.
By contrast, lacking the other half of that equation can exist. A Thief Rogue with Use Magic Device does not have a spellcasting ability, and therefore uses +0 for magic items that may require one.
From the Basic Rules, Chapter 14, Activating an Item, Spells:
A magic item, such as certain staffs, may require you to use your own spellcasting ability when you cast a spell from the item. If you have more than one spellcasting ability, you choose which one to use with the item. If you don't have a spellcasting ability - perhaps you're a rogue with the Use Magic Device feature - your spellcasting ability modifier is +0 for the item, and your proficiency bonus does apply.
$endgroup$
I can't provide evidence to confirm a negative, but in my experience (thousands of hours of DMing and playing), such a scenario does not exist. If a character is casting a spell personally rather than via an item, they will use their proficiency bonus. Some items - scrolls and wands are the most common - have a fixed DC; the character activating the item has no effect.
By contrast, lacking the other half of that equation can exist. A Thief Rogue with Use Magic Device does not have a spellcasting ability, and therefore uses +0 for magic items that may require one.
From the Basic Rules, Chapter 14, Activating an Item, Spells:
A magic item, such as certain staffs, may require you to use your own spellcasting ability when you cast a spell from the item. If you have more than one spellcasting ability, you choose which one to use with the item. If you don't have a spellcasting ability - perhaps you're a rogue with the Use Magic Device feature - your spellcasting ability modifier is +0 for the item, and your proficiency bonus does apply.
edited 9 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
T.J.L.T.J.L.
32.8k5114173
32.8k5114173
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Spell scrolls have fixed attack/save modifiers
The attack modifier or saving throw DC of a spell cast from a scroll is dependent on the level of the scroll, rather than the spellcasting ability or proficiency bonus of the caster. Looking at the modifiers given for each scroll level, they seem more or less in line with what would be expected from the proficiency bonus + spellcasting modifier for a caster whose highest level spell slots are of that level. So the intent seems to be that a spell scroll is using someone's proficiency bonus, it just isn't using yours.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Spell scrolls have fixed attack/save modifiers
The attack modifier or saving throw DC of a spell cast from a scroll is dependent on the level of the scroll, rather than the spellcasting ability or proficiency bonus of the caster. Looking at the modifiers given for each scroll level, they seem more or less in line with what would be expected from the proficiency bonus + spellcasting modifier for a caster whose highest level spell slots are of that level. So the intent seems to be that a spell scroll is using someone's proficiency bonus, it just isn't using yours.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Spell scrolls have fixed attack/save modifiers
The attack modifier or saving throw DC of a spell cast from a scroll is dependent on the level of the scroll, rather than the spellcasting ability or proficiency bonus of the caster. Looking at the modifiers given for each scroll level, they seem more or less in line with what would be expected from the proficiency bonus + spellcasting modifier for a caster whose highest level spell slots are of that level. So the intent seems to be that a spell scroll is using someone's proficiency bonus, it just isn't using yours.
$endgroup$
Spell scrolls have fixed attack/save modifiers
The attack modifier or saving throw DC of a spell cast from a scroll is dependent on the level of the scroll, rather than the spellcasting ability or proficiency bonus of the caster. Looking at the modifiers given for each scroll level, they seem more or less in line with what would be expected from the proficiency bonus + spellcasting modifier for a caster whose highest level spell slots are of that level. So the intent seems to be that a spell scroll is using someone's proficiency bonus, it just isn't using yours.
edited 8 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
10.2k23176
10.2k23176
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No such scenario exists for known, prepared, or innate spells.
If a spellcaster is intrinsically capable of casting a spell due to a class or racial feature that lets them know or prepare a spell or cast it innately, their proficiency bonus always applies to their spell attack bonus and spell save DC. For magic items or spell scrolls, there may be a fixed bonus that doesn't benefit from proficiency (such as +7 for a 3rd level spell scroll).
Note that with weapons, if you're proficient you can attack well; if you're not proficient, you can attack poorly, but nonetheless you can attack. With spells, however, either you can cast the spell or you simply can't at all. There's not really such a thing as being able to "sort of" cast a spell, except the scenarios covered in the previous paragraph.
Notably, spells such as counterspell and dispel magic require spellcasting ability checks, which by default no spellcaster is proficient in. However, Abjuration Wizards of 10th level get to add their proficiency bonus even to those checks. This implies that Abjurers are so good at those spells that they have become proficient in executing them better than other wizards, yet other wizards can still execute them to lesser effect. These aren't attacks or saves, but they indicate a niche where proficiency doesn't usually apply but could under certain circumstances.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No such scenario exists for known, prepared, or innate spells.
If a spellcaster is intrinsically capable of casting a spell due to a class or racial feature that lets them know or prepare a spell or cast it innately, their proficiency bonus always applies to their spell attack bonus and spell save DC. For magic items or spell scrolls, there may be a fixed bonus that doesn't benefit from proficiency (such as +7 for a 3rd level spell scroll).
Note that with weapons, if you're proficient you can attack well; if you're not proficient, you can attack poorly, but nonetheless you can attack. With spells, however, either you can cast the spell or you simply can't at all. There's not really such a thing as being able to "sort of" cast a spell, except the scenarios covered in the previous paragraph.
Notably, spells such as counterspell and dispel magic require spellcasting ability checks, which by default no spellcaster is proficient in. However, Abjuration Wizards of 10th level get to add their proficiency bonus even to those checks. This implies that Abjurers are so good at those spells that they have become proficient in executing them better than other wizards, yet other wizards can still execute them to lesser effect. These aren't attacks or saves, but they indicate a niche where proficiency doesn't usually apply but could under certain circumstances.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No such scenario exists for known, prepared, or innate spells.
If a spellcaster is intrinsically capable of casting a spell due to a class or racial feature that lets them know or prepare a spell or cast it innately, their proficiency bonus always applies to their spell attack bonus and spell save DC. For magic items or spell scrolls, there may be a fixed bonus that doesn't benefit from proficiency (such as +7 for a 3rd level spell scroll).
Note that with weapons, if you're proficient you can attack well; if you're not proficient, you can attack poorly, but nonetheless you can attack. With spells, however, either you can cast the spell or you simply can't at all. There's not really such a thing as being able to "sort of" cast a spell, except the scenarios covered in the previous paragraph.
Notably, spells such as counterspell and dispel magic require spellcasting ability checks, which by default no spellcaster is proficient in. However, Abjuration Wizards of 10th level get to add their proficiency bonus even to those checks. This implies that Abjurers are so good at those spells that they have become proficient in executing them better than other wizards, yet other wizards can still execute them to lesser effect. These aren't attacks or saves, but they indicate a niche where proficiency doesn't usually apply but could under certain circumstances.
$endgroup$
No such scenario exists for known, prepared, or innate spells.
If a spellcaster is intrinsically capable of casting a spell due to a class or racial feature that lets them know or prepare a spell or cast it innately, their proficiency bonus always applies to their spell attack bonus and spell save DC. For magic items or spell scrolls, there may be a fixed bonus that doesn't benefit from proficiency (such as +7 for a 3rd level spell scroll).
Note that with weapons, if you're proficient you can attack well; if you're not proficient, you can attack poorly, but nonetheless you can attack. With spells, however, either you can cast the spell or you simply can't at all. There's not really such a thing as being able to "sort of" cast a spell, except the scenarios covered in the previous paragraph.
Notably, spells such as counterspell and dispel magic require spellcasting ability checks, which by default no spellcaster is proficient in. However, Abjuration Wizards of 10th level get to add their proficiency bonus even to those checks. This implies that Abjurers are so good at those spells that they have become proficient in executing them better than other wizards, yet other wizards can still execute them to lesser effect. These aren't attacks or saves, but they indicate a niche where proficiency doesn't usually apply but could under certain circumstances.
edited 5 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
BloodcinderBloodcinder
21.8k376137
21.8k376137
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Because you want to make it easier.
You are dropping the fireball on the cleric and pulling the punch is
enough in general.You are somehow not fully in control of yourself and must throw a
spell at an ally, but can make such decisions.- You are casting a spell on a crowd for show and want them to
succeed.
New contributor
$endgroup$
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. Can you cite any relevant rules to support your answer's claims?
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is suggesting that adding the proficiency bonus is optional. That’s a central premise of your answer and should be supported, since it’s not obvious that it is an thing a player can choose to not use.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
50 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Because you want to make it easier.
You are dropping the fireball on the cleric and pulling the punch is
enough in general.You are somehow not fully in control of yourself and must throw a
spell at an ally, but can make such decisions.- You are casting a spell on a crowd for show and want them to
succeed.
New contributor
$endgroup$
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. Can you cite any relevant rules to support your answer's claims?
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is suggesting that adding the proficiency bonus is optional. That’s a central premise of your answer and should be supported, since it’s not obvious that it is an thing a player can choose to not use.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
50 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Because you want to make it easier.
You are dropping the fireball on the cleric and pulling the punch is
enough in general.You are somehow not fully in control of yourself and must throw a
spell at an ally, but can make such decisions.- You are casting a spell on a crowd for show and want them to
succeed.
New contributor
$endgroup$
Because you want to make it easier.
You are dropping the fireball on the cleric and pulling the punch is
enough in general.You are somehow not fully in control of yourself and must throw a
spell at an ally, but can make such decisions.- You are casting a spell on a crowd for show and want them to
succeed.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 5 hours ago
IMarvinTPAIMarvinTPA
1
1
New contributor
New contributor
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. Can you cite any relevant rules to support your answer's claims?
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is suggesting that adding the proficiency bonus is optional. That’s a central premise of your answer and should be supported, since it’s not obvious that it is an thing a player can choose to not use.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
50 mins ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. Can you cite any relevant rules to support your answer's claims?
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is suggesting that adding the proficiency bonus is optional. That’s a central premise of your answer and should be supported, since it’s not obvious that it is an thing a player can choose to not use.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
50 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. Can you cite any relevant rules to support your answer's claims?
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. Can you cite any relevant rules to support your answer's claims?
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is suggesting that adding the proficiency bonus is optional. That’s a central premise of your answer and should be supported, since it’s not obvious that it is an thing a player can choose to not use.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
50 mins ago
$begingroup$
This is suggesting that adding the proficiency bonus is optional. That’s a central premise of your answer and should be supported, since it’s not obvious that it is an thing a player can choose to not use.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
50 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142674%2funder-what-conditions-would-i-not-add-my-proficiency-bonus-to-a-spell-attack-rol%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown