Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6775878" data-attributes="member: 92511">You're saying, &quot;I should be able to use my skill.&quot; Yes?Since, as everyone knows/agrees, a skill roll isn't a thing. &quot;Using a skill&quot; is tantamount to saying &quot;I should get my ability roll [Int] + proficiency&quot;...The spell already says, &quot;make an ability check [Int].&quot; So, you are already making an Int roll.By saying, &quot;Why can't I add my skill to that ability roll [from the spell]&quot; is the same as saying, &quot;I want to roll the ability score [Int, from the spell] + Arcana skill [ability score bonus + proficiency bonus].&quot;So that's Int bonus + Int bonus + Proficiency. That's my parsing of what you're asking/where I'm &quot;getting it from.&quot;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 &quot;no&quot; is a perfectly reasonable, if not objectively provable RAW, ruling. You have also attempted to support your position with the ever popular, &quot;but the books don't say, specifically, that I can't...&quot; the implication being an unspoken, &quot;...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.'&quot; 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). &quot;How do I use/abuse/get around RAW to gain extra/unspecified advantages&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 6775878, member: 92511"] 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[I] can't[/I]..." 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification