Under what conditions would I NOT add my Proficiency Bonus to a Spell Attack Roll (or Saving Throw DC)?How do I calculate if a spell hits and how much damage it does?What is the spell attack bonus and spell save DC of a Thief using the Use Magic Device feature?Can an Eldritch Knight use the bonus-action attack granted by War Magic before casting the spell as an action?How do monsters make saving throws?When do I roll a Saving Throw?What is the Wand of Paralysis' Saving Throw?Does proficiency with tools add to a check with a skill you are already proficient in?Should rolling a 1 on a spell saving throw double that spell's damage?How does Compelled Duel work with the saving throws?When throwing a melee weapon without the thrown property is the proficiency bonus still added to the attack?
Capacitor electron flow
Not hide and seek
Why is implicit conversion not ambiguous for non-primitive types?
Do native speakers use "ultima" and "proxima" frequently in spoken English?
Why does the frost depth increase when the surface temperature warms up?
How do I prevent inappropriate ads from appearing in my game?
How do you justify more code being written by following clean code practices?
What is the period/term used describe Giuseppe Arcimboldo's style of painting?
Reasons for having MCU pin-states default to pull-up/down out of reset
Put the phone down / Put down the phone
Writing in a Christian voice
I keep switching characters, how do I stop?
Why didn’t Eve recognize the little cockroach as a living organism?
Should a narrator ever describe things based on a character's view instead of facts?
Make a Bowl of Alphabet Soup
Derivative of an interpolated function
Can a Knock spell open the door to Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion?
Relations between homogeneous polynomials
Turning a hard to access nut?
Travelling in US for more than 90 days
Has the laser at Magurele, Romania reached a tenth of the Sun's power?
Unfrosted light bulb
Air travel with refrigerated insulin
Asserting that Atheism and Theism are both faith based positions
Under what conditions would I NOT add my Proficiency Bonus to a Spell Attack Roll (or Saving Throw DC)?
How do I calculate if a spell hits and how much damage it does?What is the spell attack bonus and spell save DC of a Thief using the Use Magic Device feature?Can an Eldritch Knight use the bonus-action attack granted by War Magic before casting the spell as an action?How do monsters make saving throws?When do I roll a Saving Throw?What is the Wand of Paralysis' Saving Throw?Does proficiency with tools add to a check with a skill you are already proficient in?Should rolling a 1 on a spell saving throw double that spell's damage?How does Compelled Duel work with the saving throws?When throwing a melee weapon without the thrown property is the proficiency bonus still added to the attack?
$begingroup$
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 Mar 7 at 19:01
V2Blast
25k383155
25k383155
asked Mar 7 at 18:42
XiremaXirema
21.5k263126
21.5k263126
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Humorous side effect: A wizard with 8 int is actually worse at spellcasting than someone who isn't a wizard.
$endgroup$
– Yakk
Mar 8 at 16:28
$begingroup$
@Yakk Worse at using magic items, anyway.
$endgroup$
– T.J.L.
Mar 8 at 16:29
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 |
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
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Humorous side effect: A wizard with 8 int is actually worse at spellcasting than someone who isn't a wizard.
$endgroup$
– Yakk
Mar 8 at 16:28
$begingroup$
@Yakk Worse at using magic items, anyway.
$endgroup$
– T.J.L.
Mar 8 at 16:29
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Humorous side effect: A wizard with 8 int is actually worse at spellcasting than someone who isn't a wizard.
$endgroup$
– Yakk
Mar 8 at 16:28
$begingroup$
@Yakk Worse at using magic items, anyway.
$endgroup$
– T.J.L.
Mar 8 at 16:29
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 Mar 7 at 19:02
answered Mar 7 at 18:47
T.J.L.T.J.L.
33.1k5118177
33.1k5118177
$begingroup$
Humorous side effect: A wizard with 8 int is actually worse at spellcasting than someone who isn't a wizard.
$endgroup$
– Yakk
Mar 8 at 16:28
$begingroup$
@Yakk Worse at using magic items, anyway.
$endgroup$
– T.J.L.
Mar 8 at 16:29
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Humorous side effect: A wizard with 8 int is actually worse at spellcasting than someone who isn't a wizard.
$endgroup$
– Yakk
Mar 8 at 16:28
$begingroup$
@Yakk Worse at using magic items, anyway.
$endgroup$
– T.J.L.
Mar 8 at 16:29
$begingroup$
Humorous side effect: A wizard with 8 int is actually worse at spellcasting than someone who isn't a wizard.
$endgroup$
– Yakk
Mar 8 at 16:28
$begingroup$
Humorous side effect: A wizard with 8 int is actually worse at spellcasting than someone who isn't a wizard.
$endgroup$
– Yakk
Mar 8 at 16:28
$begingroup$
@Yakk Worse at using magic items, anyway.
$endgroup$
– T.J.L.
Mar 8 at 16:29
$begingroup$
@Yakk Worse at using magic items, anyway.
$endgroup$
– T.J.L.
Mar 8 at 16:29
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 Mar 7 at 19:44
answered Mar 7 at 18:54
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
10.3k23178
10.3k23178
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 Mar 7 at 22:52
answered Mar 7 at 19:04
BloodcinderBloodcinder
22.7k380139
22.7k380139
add a comment |
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