I'm brand new to D&D 5e and still settling. I'm also ill and not up to searching, and my face to face group looks to me to be that rules guy...*smirk*. I've been stalling them, but I really need to give them a concrete answer.

I have found nothing to indicate proficiency automatically adds the bonus to AC. With weapons, for instance it says it adds the bonus to the attack. With Armor it talks about lacking proficiency simply causing massive disadvantage and loss of spellcasting.

Am I correct? Please tell me that I am. Otherwise I screwed over a player already. Seriously though, just tell me the truth. A single player is arguing of course it adds the bonus, it adds to everything. I, using GM power (temporarily), said it didn't, but I would put it to RPoL to help me know the truth. He's content with that decision, and so I too will be.

Thanks for the help! I literally, ACTUALLY, have a headache (though that's probably medically related...doctor time...yay.)

Sorry for the lack of a real question...Do you add your proficiency bonus (+2 at 1st) to AC?

 http://5e.d20srd.org/srd/using...htm#proficiencyBonus

 Characters have a proficiency bonus determined by level. Monsters also have this bonus, which is incorporated in their stat blocks. The bonus is used in the rules on ability checks, saving throws, and attack rolls.

 So, nope!

Thank you! I never thought of using SRD, as our group has no less than two core sets of the books and it's more convenient than having a window open on the GM's (my) computer.

That solves that 'problem'. I think Mike is just mad because his 19 AC fighter got hit at all. It was close, and so that's why I think he was having wishful thinking.

Mods, I'd like to keep this open for maybe 48 hours in case someone finds some obscure rule (exception). After that, you can close this. I anticipate the query is well answered. :)

Nope. No obscure exception. Your proficiency bonus only ever applies to ability checks (for things your proficient in), saving throws (that you're proficient in), and attacks (with weapons your proficient with). Even a Barbarian or Monk's Unarmored Defense or the spell Mage Armor does not use your proficiency modifier.

In reply to aguy777 (msg # 5):

Yes, to all this. Nor does a fighters' maneuvers. This was actually the contention Mike used "Well of course they don't, because EVERYONE already does". Which I rolled my eyes at.

Moreover, it seems a wasted effort TBH. Why would you bother to add a proficiency bonus to attacks and then also for armor. He said it "balanced" the game, as if it would be anything but rare that someone would wear armor their not proficient in, or a weapon they're not proficient in. The fact it does not explicitly say it doesn't add to AC was what he was arguing. Which is tedious and fallacious.

To be fair, the group is heavily in 4e too (so kindly don't bash the system [here]), and in that system the level bonus creeps for EVERYONE. IMO (and many people's) the level bonus it a superfluous step, since you recommended not to use lower level monsters, but instead minions for "easier" encounters.

I think 4e to 5e was an abrupt turn around, and since we still play everything after 3.0 (so yes, we play 3.5) it's difficult for them to abandon the "norm". I think my (rather average) ability to transition from the different systems frivolously called "editions" makes me the rules guy. Even when I'm not the GM. This is because the majority of the group take baggage from other iterations. They simply assume something applies, because it did before. Which is a quite disastrous practice. lol.

Normally I would vet this myself, and look over for the specific portion (which I could have looked under "proficiency bonus"--I looked under armor *facepalm*) but I'm feeling bad, and while I'm not sick, I have a killer headache for the past several days. So I wanted to just ask. I probably could have found it, but I was tired...but I said that...I think.

I'm confident you're right. I was fairly confident I too was right. Which I seem to be. Still, just on the very off chance someone comes and says "Nope! You're all wrong!" I'd like to give 48 hours, which is when Mike is getting his final ruling. I will give him that (well slightly less, since I made that post a awhile ago now).

Many people were wrong about empower+maximize in 3.5. Even "leet" LG (living Greyhawk) players swore you didn't roll when you empowered a maximize. In fact you do, it specifically says you roll for an empower, EVEN if it's maximized. Same with archers in fullplate (or heck, half-plate) getting their full dex to ranged attacks. Max dex is ONLY for AC. (I know 3.5 best)

People swore by these fallacies, so I'm going to give Mike the benefit of doubt, but I'm quite confident (even if not absolutely certain) what it says the proficiency adds to is ALL it adds to, unless specified explicitly otherwise. If someone can find the elusive, thus deemed obscure rightfully, citation, fine. I'm not holding my breath though, far from it. :) I'm quite relieved and appreciative of the quick reply. :)

...Then there's expertise, which he ALSO wanted to argue about...but he's a fighter, so I ruled that simply moot.
This message was last updated by a moderator, as it was moot, at 11:26, Sun 08 July 2018.