D&D 5E (2014) Dispel Magic and Arcana skill (or religion)

[The Crimson Binome]

There is no such thing as a "skill" check in 5e, just ability checks to which your skills may apply and thus allow you to add your proficiency bonus. Also no skill is tied to a specific ability, if you can make a case why that skill would apply in the given situation, it does not matter if it is a strength or Con check, you still get the proficiency bonus if it makes sense. Some skills logically lean towards one or more ability scores, but they are not tied to it is my understanding. I'm pretty sure the DMG even gives an example where in different situations a person could apply Athletics to either a Str or a Con check, as long as it made sense.

There is, indeed, a variant rule where you might sometimes apply a different attribute to a skill check. The default assumption is that every Athletics check is a Strength (Athletics) check. If the DM really thinks that a different stat is more applicable, and that opening up the possibility of alternate skill bases is appropriate for the game being run, then the DM has discretion to ask for a Con (Athletics) check instead. It really is the exception rather than the rule, though. I wouldn't expect to ever see such a thing listed in a published adventure, in the same way that no published adventure will implement slower healing times.

It's never on the player to make the case, though. It's only ever a tool for the DM to use, should circumstances warrant.

So in this case I don't see why you would not be able to apply arcana skill to say ya, I should be able to get this bonus on this Intelligence check.

There are two possible explanations for why the system is the way it is. The Watsonian explanation is that knowledge of arcane phenomena simply does not aid in your ability to overpower another spell, unless you have very specific training in how to do so (as an Abjurer does). The Doylist explanation is that we don't want spells to be dispelled too easily, and we want to throw a bone to the Abjurers who really should be the star in this situation.

Note that, if you let Proficiency factor into your check, you have a 65% chance of ending a 9th-level spell effect by expending a 3rd-level spell slot. If you let Abjurers double-dip their Proficiency, then they never need to uprank a Dispel Magic in order to end a spell of 8th-level or lower, and they can fail to end a 9th-level spell only on a roll of 1.

 

[Otterscrubber]

Look at the Abjurer. At 10th level he gains the ability to add his proficiency bonus to specifically Dispel Magic and Counterspell. Not until. And other wizards are not as good at abjuration spells as the Abjurer. So why should other wizards be able to add their proficiency bonus?

A few reasons actually. #1 is that they took the limited choice of skill slots they had and chose one that would be useful. Also, it could be read that abjurers get to add their proficiency bonus without having to get a skill do so, or even that they stack so that in any event an abjurer with arcana would be even better than a non-abjurer with arcana.

But I do see your point, since abjurers get that ability it at least opens the door that it was not intended to be allowed that any skills apply to the ability check required by Dispel Magic or Counterspell. But it also says it is an ability check, and in those cases, barring specific wording to the contrary, applicable skills should allow you to get your proficiency bonus. That's what it says under ability checks and I see no wording in the dispel magic or counterspell to say this is anything other than a standard ability check, and on standard ability checks relevant skills allow you get your proficiency bonus.


***ok, kinda repeated myself there, wasn't trying to be snarky

 

[KahlessNestor]

A few reasons actually. #1 is that they took the limited choice of skill slots they had and chose one that would be useful. Also, it could be read that abjurers get to add their proficiency bonus without having to get a skill do so, or even that they stack so that in any event an abjurer with arcana would be even better than a non-abjurer with arcana.

But I do see your point, since abjurers get that ability it at least opens the door that it was not intended to be allowed that any skills apply to the ability check required by Dispel Magic or Counterspell. But it also says it is an ability check, and in those cases, barring specific wording to the contrary, applicable skills should allow you to get your proficiency bonus. That's what it says under ability checks and I see no wording in the dispel magic or counterspell to say this is anything other than a standard ability check, and on standard ability checks relevant skills allow you get your proficiency bonus.

It's an ability check included as part of a spell. I wouldn't call that a standard ability check that would allow use of a skill.

 

[Otterscrubber]

It's an ability check included as part of a spell. I wouldn't call that a standard ability check that would allow use of a skill.

I do not recall reading anywhere that states an ability check required as part of a spell is any different than any other ability check. Which is what I meant by "standard", not that there anything specifically called a "standard" ability check. Just that it was an ability check that had no specific limitations placed on it by the wording of the spells using them.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But it also says it is an ability check, and in those cases, barring specific wording to the contrary, applicable skills should allow you to get your proficiency bonus.

From what I can tell, based on reading the three books, it will always state when a skill is relevant to a given check. The ability for the DM to apply skill proficiency to other checks is meant to cover the sorts of checks that aren't explicitly listed under any particular rule. If Arcana was always supposed to apply to Dispell/Counterspell, then they would have bothered to state that.

And I can't imagine an Abjurer getting to level 10 without being proficient in Arcana. I mean, you could technically do it by the game rules, but I can't imagine what character concept that could possibly be - arcane spellcasters who don't understand How Magic Works are covered much more definitively with the Sorcerer class.

 

[Phantarch]

You are correct that there are no skill checks in 5e, only ability checks that sometimes add skill proficiency. However, in the rules these are typically called out very specifically (e.g., make an Intelligence (Arcana) check). If it is not called out specifically, there really isn't a rules argument to apply your skill proficiency to a check. At this point, it is entirely in the DM's purview, and subject to his thoughts and whims.

For the various reasons others have listed, I agree with your DM's decision and would not allow it. It isn't mechanically balanced, and isn't implied at all in the spell.

Furthermore, the arcana check "measures your ability to recall lore about spells...". This is more subjective, but I'd say that knowing the lore about the spell isn't really the same as understanding the technical aspects of how to tear apart a spell using another spell. I'd liken this to a car aficionado knowing all about a car's specifications, but still not having the technical know-how to dismantle and rebuild an engine. Likewise, a mechanic can effectively dismantle and rebuild an engine, and doesn't need to know about the history of the makes and models of that car.

 

[Otterscrubber]

I humbly bow to the collective wisdom of the ENWorld forums Thanks for the feedback folks!

 

[steeldragons]

Not sure what you mean by trying to get my Int bonus twice, that's not what I was asking about. Skills are not tied to ability particular ability score and they don't allow you get any other bonus than your proficiency bonus. So I'm not 100% sure where you are getting this Int bonus x2 thing. I just wanted to know why I would not be allowed to add my proficiency bonus when making an ability check (any of them) that is rooted in an arcane reason. That's what skills are in 5e, if the skill applies to the ability check (whatever ability that may be), then you get to add your proficiency bonus to the ability check....period. It's not rules lawyering, at least I don't think so. Just clarification.

You're saying, "I should be able to use my skill." Yes?

Since, as everyone knows/agrees, a skill roll isn't a thing. "Using a skill" is tantamount to saying "I should get my ability roll [Int] + proficiency"...

The spell already says, "make an ability check [Int]." So, you are already making an Int roll.

By saying, "Why can't I add my skill to that ability roll [from the spell]" is the same as saying, "I want to roll the ability score [Int, from the spell] + Arcana skill [ability score bonus + proficiency bonus]."

So that's Int bonus + Int bonus + Proficiency. That's my parsing of what you're asking/where I'm "getting it from."

Now, you have since clarified that is not what you're saying, just that you want to add proficiency to the dispel magic roll...and you have at least a few reasons that others have detailed why "no" is a perfectly reasonable, if not objectively provable RAW, ruling.

You have also attempted to support your position with the ever popular, "but the books don't say, specifically, that I can't..." the implication being an unspoken, "...so, Mr. DM, you should be letting me do/have this, since there's no specific passage in the book that says 'I can't.'"

That's a fairly common rules lawyering stance/tactic. You might not intend it that way, but it certainly how it's coming across to me (and I presume others sensitive to this kind of thing). "How do I use/abuse/get around RAW to gain extra/unspecified advantages" is rules lawyering...at least, in my book.

For me, RAI trumps RAW any time. Of course, play as you like and enjoy your gaming.

EDIT: So, apparently while I was typing, you were bowing to ENworld's collective wisdom. Fair enough. Carry on. hahaha.

 

[mellored]

This is just an ability check, rather than a skill check, so you don't get to add any benefit from one of your skills. I am fairly certain that Wizard Abjurers gain their proficiency bonus to Dispel Magic and Counterspell, and this is considered a significant class feature for them.

Bards also get 1/2 their proficiency to Dispel & Counterpsell.


But yea, otherwise it's just an Int check. And the DC is specifically in range for that (11 to 19).

 

[jgsugden]

If they wanted you to add your proficiency bonus, they'd say to add it. They set the DCs with the expectation you would not be adding other bonuses (unless an abjurer, bard, etc...)