Does the Rock Gnome trait Artificer's Lore apply when you aren't proficient in History?How to roll perception checks for characters who aren't actively looking without arousing suspicion?What's the advantage of being proficient with a Disguise Kit over the Deception skill?Can you gain a proficiency bonus, without being proficient?How do Expertise and the Acrobat feat proficiency effects combine?Do you apply double Proficiency from Expertise on top of normal Proficiency?Do features that allow you to add twice your proficiency bonus, under some other name, stack with Expertise?Does the Abjuration wizard's Improved Abjuration feature apply when casting sufficiently high-level spells from scrolls?Is there a way for a Rock Gnome Artificer to have double proficiency with Tinker's Tools?Are there other features like “Jack of All Trades” or “Remarkable Athlete”?Is there a way to add your proficiency bonus to a generic ability check for use with Reliable Talent?
As an international instructor, should I openly talk about my accent?
Multiple options vs single option UI
SFDX - Create Objects with Custom Properties
How do I produce this Greek letter koppa: Ϟ in pdfLaTeX?
Why did C use the -> operator instead of reusing the . operator?
Extracting Dirichlet series coefficients
Retract an already submitted recommendation letter (written for an undergrad student)
Is it acceptable to use working hours to read general interest books?
What is purpose of DB Browser(dbbrowser.aspx) under admin tool?
A strange hotel
Check if a string is entirely made of the same substring
What makes accurate emulation of old systems a difficult task?
Who's the random kid standing in the gathering at the end?
How important is it that $TERM is correct?
What *exactly* is electrical current, voltage, and resistance?
Multiple fireplaces in an apartment building?
Can I criticise the more senior developers around me for not writing clean code?
How bug prioritization works in agile projects vs non agile
Mistake in years of experience in resume?
What is this word supposed to be?
Creating a chemical industry from a medieval tech level without petroleum
My bank got bought out, am I now going to have to start filing tax returns in a different state?
What is the term for a person whose job is to place products on shelves in stores?
Will I lose my paid in full property
Does the Rock Gnome trait Artificer's Lore apply when you aren't proficient in History?
How to roll perception checks for characters who aren't actively looking without arousing suspicion?What's the advantage of being proficient with a Disguise Kit over the Deception skill?Can you gain a proficiency bonus, without being proficient?How do Expertise and the Acrobat feat proficiency effects combine?Do you apply double Proficiency from Expertise on top of normal Proficiency?Do features that allow you to add twice your proficiency bonus, under some other name, stack with Expertise?Does the Abjuration wizard's Improved Abjuration feature apply when casting sufficiently high-level spells from scrolls?Is there a way for a Rock Gnome Artificer to have double proficiency with Tinker's Tools?Are there other features like “Jack of All Trades” or “Remarkable Athlete”?Is there a way to add your proficiency bonus to a generic ability check for use with Reliable Talent?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
Rock Gnomes have the following racial trait (PHB, p. 37):
Artificer’s Lore
Whenever you make an Intelligence (History) check related to magic items, alchemical objects, or technological devices, you can add twice your proficiency bonus, instead of any proficiency bonus you normally apply.
If I have a Rock Gnome who is proficient in History, then I normally apply my proficiency bonus to make History checks, but if the check is about, say, a magic item, I can add twice my proficiency bonus instead of just applying it once as normal. This much makes sense.
But what if my Rock Gnome isn't proficient in History? Since I don't apply any proficiency bonus normally (because I'm not proficient), I have nothing to apply instead of, like how you technically can't have more of something if you haven't had any yet. So does that mean I don't apply my proficiency bonus twice, since ordinarily I don't apply anything?
Initially I assumed that it probably means you get to treat the situation as though you are proficient in History in those circumstances (i.e. when the check is related to magic items, alchemical objects, or technological devices), but if we contrast it with a Dwarf's Stonecunning trait (PHB, p. 20):
Stonecunning
Whenever you make an Intelligence (History) check related to the origin of stonework, you are considered proficient in the History skill and add double your proficiency bonus to the check, instead of your normal proficiency bonus.
For Stonecunning, it explicitly states that you are considered proficient in History for such checks, taking into account dwarven characters who are not proficient in History normally.
So, RAW, does the Rock Gnome trait Artificer's Lore apply when you aren't proficient in History?
dnd-5e skills racial-traits proficiency gnomes
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Rock Gnomes have the following racial trait (PHB, p. 37):
Artificer’s Lore
Whenever you make an Intelligence (History) check related to magic items, alchemical objects, or technological devices, you can add twice your proficiency bonus, instead of any proficiency bonus you normally apply.
If I have a Rock Gnome who is proficient in History, then I normally apply my proficiency bonus to make History checks, but if the check is about, say, a magic item, I can add twice my proficiency bonus instead of just applying it once as normal. This much makes sense.
But what if my Rock Gnome isn't proficient in History? Since I don't apply any proficiency bonus normally (because I'm not proficient), I have nothing to apply instead of, like how you technically can't have more of something if you haven't had any yet. So does that mean I don't apply my proficiency bonus twice, since ordinarily I don't apply anything?
Initially I assumed that it probably means you get to treat the situation as though you are proficient in History in those circumstances (i.e. when the check is related to magic items, alchemical objects, or technological devices), but if we contrast it with a Dwarf's Stonecunning trait (PHB, p. 20):
Stonecunning
Whenever you make an Intelligence (History) check related to the origin of stonework, you are considered proficient in the History skill and add double your proficiency bonus to the check, instead of your normal proficiency bonus.
For Stonecunning, it explicitly states that you are considered proficient in History for such checks, taking into account dwarven characters who are not proficient in History normally.
So, RAW, does the Rock Gnome trait Artificer's Lore apply when you aren't proficient in History?
dnd-5e skills racial-traits proficiency gnomes
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Rock Gnomes have the following racial trait (PHB, p. 37):
Artificer’s Lore
Whenever you make an Intelligence (History) check related to magic items, alchemical objects, or technological devices, you can add twice your proficiency bonus, instead of any proficiency bonus you normally apply.
If I have a Rock Gnome who is proficient in History, then I normally apply my proficiency bonus to make History checks, but if the check is about, say, a magic item, I can add twice my proficiency bonus instead of just applying it once as normal. This much makes sense.
But what if my Rock Gnome isn't proficient in History? Since I don't apply any proficiency bonus normally (because I'm not proficient), I have nothing to apply instead of, like how you technically can't have more of something if you haven't had any yet. So does that mean I don't apply my proficiency bonus twice, since ordinarily I don't apply anything?
Initially I assumed that it probably means you get to treat the situation as though you are proficient in History in those circumstances (i.e. when the check is related to magic items, alchemical objects, or technological devices), but if we contrast it with a Dwarf's Stonecunning trait (PHB, p. 20):
Stonecunning
Whenever you make an Intelligence (History) check related to the origin of stonework, you are considered proficient in the History skill and add double your proficiency bonus to the check, instead of your normal proficiency bonus.
For Stonecunning, it explicitly states that you are considered proficient in History for such checks, taking into account dwarven characters who are not proficient in History normally.
So, RAW, does the Rock Gnome trait Artificer's Lore apply when you aren't proficient in History?
dnd-5e skills racial-traits proficiency gnomes
$endgroup$
Rock Gnomes have the following racial trait (PHB, p. 37):
Artificer’s Lore
Whenever you make an Intelligence (History) check related to magic items, alchemical objects, or technological devices, you can add twice your proficiency bonus, instead of any proficiency bonus you normally apply.
If I have a Rock Gnome who is proficient in History, then I normally apply my proficiency bonus to make History checks, but if the check is about, say, a magic item, I can add twice my proficiency bonus instead of just applying it once as normal. This much makes sense.
But what if my Rock Gnome isn't proficient in History? Since I don't apply any proficiency bonus normally (because I'm not proficient), I have nothing to apply instead of, like how you technically can't have more of something if you haven't had any yet. So does that mean I don't apply my proficiency bonus twice, since ordinarily I don't apply anything?
Initially I assumed that it probably means you get to treat the situation as though you are proficient in History in those circumstances (i.e. when the check is related to magic items, alchemical objects, or technological devices), but if we contrast it with a Dwarf's Stonecunning trait (PHB, p. 20):
Stonecunning
Whenever you make an Intelligence (History) check related to the origin of stonework, you are considered proficient in the History skill and add double your proficiency bonus to the check, instead of your normal proficiency bonus.
For Stonecunning, it explicitly states that you are considered proficient in History for such checks, taking into account dwarven characters who are not proficient in History normally.
So, RAW, does the Rock Gnome trait Artificer's Lore apply when you aren't proficient in History?
dnd-5e skills racial-traits proficiency gnomes
dnd-5e skills racial-traits proficiency gnomes
edited Apr 21 at 23:00
V2Blast
27.8k598169
27.8k598169
asked Apr 21 at 11:22
NathanSNathanS
27.3k9134288
27.3k9134288
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The wordings are essentially equivalent
Both wordings result in you adding twice your proficiency bonus to any roll for which the ability applies. The wording you've highlighted in bold for Artificer's Lore is just ensuring that the double proficiency bonus doesn't stack with any other proficiency (i.e. you don't get triple your proficiency bonus if you were already proficient). I'm not sure why they would use a different wording for these abilities with apparently identical mechanics.
The alternative interpretation would be that Artificer's Lore has no effect at all without proficiency in history. This would be unprecedented: racial traits tend to stand alone independent of class or background features. No other racial trait from any race that I can think of is entirely negated by failing to acquire the appropriate proficiency through one's class or background.
One possible very subtle difference is that unlike Stonecunning, Artificer's Lore doesn't explicitly give you proficiency in the relevant check despite changing the modifier. This could conceivably matter if actual proficiency is a hard requirement for something. On the other hand, I think there's a strong case to be made that adding your proficiency bonus is synonymous with actually having proficiency, so this is very much the DM's call. As a DM, I would favor the player by default and consider them proficient, rather than attempting to rules-laywer my way out of letting the player do something cool with their racial ability. Under this ruling, the mechanics are precisely equivalent to Stonecunning.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
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%2f145562%2fdoes-the-rock-gnome-trait-artificers-lore-apply-when-you-arent-proficient-in-h%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The wordings are essentially equivalent
Both wordings result in you adding twice your proficiency bonus to any roll for which the ability applies. The wording you've highlighted in bold for Artificer's Lore is just ensuring that the double proficiency bonus doesn't stack with any other proficiency (i.e. you don't get triple your proficiency bonus if you were already proficient). I'm not sure why they would use a different wording for these abilities with apparently identical mechanics.
The alternative interpretation would be that Artificer's Lore has no effect at all without proficiency in history. This would be unprecedented: racial traits tend to stand alone independent of class or background features. No other racial trait from any race that I can think of is entirely negated by failing to acquire the appropriate proficiency through one's class or background.
One possible very subtle difference is that unlike Stonecunning, Artificer's Lore doesn't explicitly give you proficiency in the relevant check despite changing the modifier. This could conceivably matter if actual proficiency is a hard requirement for something. On the other hand, I think there's a strong case to be made that adding your proficiency bonus is synonymous with actually having proficiency, so this is very much the DM's call. As a DM, I would favor the player by default and consider them proficient, rather than attempting to rules-laywer my way out of letting the player do something cool with their racial ability. Under this ruling, the mechanics are precisely equivalent to Stonecunning.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The wordings are essentially equivalent
Both wordings result in you adding twice your proficiency bonus to any roll for which the ability applies. The wording you've highlighted in bold for Artificer's Lore is just ensuring that the double proficiency bonus doesn't stack with any other proficiency (i.e. you don't get triple your proficiency bonus if you were already proficient). I'm not sure why they would use a different wording for these abilities with apparently identical mechanics.
The alternative interpretation would be that Artificer's Lore has no effect at all without proficiency in history. This would be unprecedented: racial traits tend to stand alone independent of class or background features. No other racial trait from any race that I can think of is entirely negated by failing to acquire the appropriate proficiency through one's class or background.
One possible very subtle difference is that unlike Stonecunning, Artificer's Lore doesn't explicitly give you proficiency in the relevant check despite changing the modifier. This could conceivably matter if actual proficiency is a hard requirement for something. On the other hand, I think there's a strong case to be made that adding your proficiency bonus is synonymous with actually having proficiency, so this is very much the DM's call. As a DM, I would favor the player by default and consider them proficient, rather than attempting to rules-laywer my way out of letting the player do something cool with their racial ability. Under this ruling, the mechanics are precisely equivalent to Stonecunning.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The wordings are essentially equivalent
Both wordings result in you adding twice your proficiency bonus to any roll for which the ability applies. The wording you've highlighted in bold for Artificer's Lore is just ensuring that the double proficiency bonus doesn't stack with any other proficiency (i.e. you don't get triple your proficiency bonus if you were already proficient). I'm not sure why they would use a different wording for these abilities with apparently identical mechanics.
The alternative interpretation would be that Artificer's Lore has no effect at all without proficiency in history. This would be unprecedented: racial traits tend to stand alone independent of class or background features. No other racial trait from any race that I can think of is entirely negated by failing to acquire the appropriate proficiency through one's class or background.
One possible very subtle difference is that unlike Stonecunning, Artificer's Lore doesn't explicitly give you proficiency in the relevant check despite changing the modifier. This could conceivably matter if actual proficiency is a hard requirement for something. On the other hand, I think there's a strong case to be made that adding your proficiency bonus is synonymous with actually having proficiency, so this is very much the DM's call. As a DM, I would favor the player by default and consider them proficient, rather than attempting to rules-laywer my way out of letting the player do something cool with their racial ability. Under this ruling, the mechanics are precisely equivalent to Stonecunning.
$endgroup$
The wordings are essentially equivalent
Both wordings result in you adding twice your proficiency bonus to any roll for which the ability applies. The wording you've highlighted in bold for Artificer's Lore is just ensuring that the double proficiency bonus doesn't stack with any other proficiency (i.e. you don't get triple your proficiency bonus if you were already proficient). I'm not sure why they would use a different wording for these abilities with apparently identical mechanics.
The alternative interpretation would be that Artificer's Lore has no effect at all without proficiency in history. This would be unprecedented: racial traits tend to stand alone independent of class or background features. No other racial trait from any race that I can think of is entirely negated by failing to acquire the appropriate proficiency through one's class or background.
One possible very subtle difference is that unlike Stonecunning, Artificer's Lore doesn't explicitly give you proficiency in the relevant check despite changing the modifier. This could conceivably matter if actual proficiency is a hard requirement for something. On the other hand, I think there's a strong case to be made that adding your proficiency bonus is synonymous with actually having proficiency, so this is very much the DM's call. As a DM, I would favor the player by default and consider them proficient, rather than attempting to rules-laywer my way out of letting the player do something cool with their racial ability. Under this ruling, the mechanics are precisely equivalent to Stonecunning.
edited Apr 21 at 16:05
answered Apr 21 at 14:21
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
12.5k24394
12.5k24394
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%2f145562%2fdoes-the-rock-gnome-trait-artificers-lore-apply-when-you-arent-proficient-in-h%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