If I have a rogue, can I use expertise on Dex saving throws?

Can I check off saving throw for expertise instead of a skill? Both are in the same area of my character sheet.

  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Do you own the Players Handbook? Have you taken a look at the Rogue Class in the free Basic Rules hosted at WoTC's web site(media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/…)? Taking a look at the rule book before asking a question is a good idea. \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Feb 23 '18 at 15:27

Saving Throws and Skill Checks are different and cannot be interchanged

I can honestly understand your confusion; I've been there before.

Generally, in 5e, you will have three basic types of rolls that the player will be asked to make: the attack roll, the ability check, and the saving throw.

Ability checks and saving throws both use your ability scores (and they do appear in the same area on your character sheet), but they are very different things mechanically.

Expertise says:

Choose two of your skill proficiencies.

Since it specifically says skill proficiencies that means that saving throws cannot be applied instead (because they are different).

Reading the entry for each in the Player's Handbook (Chapter 7) should help clear up the exact differences between the two. You can access the relevant sections online even: Ability Checks (Skills) and Saving Throws.

Note: You can also choose to apply expertise to a tool proficiency that you have, but that isn't strictly relevant to what you asked.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ The rogue can also choose a tool proficiency. \$\endgroup\$ – ValhallaGH Feb 23 '18 at 15:08
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Leaving out information makes your argument incomplete, harms your credibility, can be seen as insulting your audience, and leaves room for future confusion when your audience discovers your omission. \$\endgroup\$ – ValhallaGH Feb 23 '18 at 15:19
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ However, an answer for a confused player is often better crafted by directly addressing the relevant problem instead of including unrelated detail that wasn't causing the confusion and is likely to cause more confusion if you have to further explain the unrelated detail. \$\endgroup\$ – Bloodcinder Feb 23 '18 at 15:55
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @ValhallaGH: Indeed. I deleted my previous comment because I realized it may have come across as demeaning to OP, but the gist was that I do not think it is relevant in the context of OP's confusion. I have added it regardless in an area least likely to cause additional confusion. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Feb 23 '18 at 15:57
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ golf clap for the clarity in the revision. \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Feb 23 '18 at 16:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.