Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Markn" data-source="post: 7737183" data-attributes="member: 21827">Connecting a few of the dots:It's been stated that the proficiency system is unified among saves, attacks and skills.It's also been stated that the following proficiency suggestion &quot;is on the right track&quot;:Untrained -2 Trained +0 Expert +1 Master +2 Legend +3On another thread it was said &quot;half level seemed like a good idea on paper&quot; but in the end it wasn't.&nbsp; I take this to mean that you get +1 per level.&nbsp; If you are fighting enemies of the same level, then the level bonuses cancel making them null.&nbsp; If you are fighting something 4 levels lower, you have essentially a +4 level bonus to hit (not that it will be called that) plus other differences such as proficiency and attribute bonuses.&nbsp; Further a fighter doing a melee attack likely has a Legendary bonus in that attack, while a wizard casting a spell has legendary bonus in their spell attack roll.&nbsp; Both are likely to have a +4 (or thereabouts) attribute bonus. Using this info and extrapolating comments on on the fighter/wizard comparison in this thread, this indicates to me that a wizard can become trained in melee combat while a fighter can get up to legendary.&nbsp; This supports the difference of being only +3 in the wizard trying to be a fighter topic.In the end, I think this tightens up the gaps from the high points and the low points.&nbsp; The relative difference from the average attack at any given level is more important than the total attack bonus number.&nbsp; This makes eyeballing monsters super easy on the DMs side of the screen too.&nbsp; Something I am all for.While I don't think this is entirely accurate, I think this is very close....</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Markn, post: 7737183, member: 21827"] Connecting a few of the dots: It's been stated that the proficiency system is unified among saves, attacks and skills. It's also been stated that the following proficiency suggestion "is on the right track": Untrained -2 Trained +0 Expert +1 Master +2 Legend +3 On another thread it was said "half level seemed like a good idea on paper" but in the end it wasn't. I take this to mean that you get +1 per level. If you are fighting enemies of the same level, then the level bonuses cancel making them null. If you are fighting something 4 levels lower, you have essentially a +4 level bonus to hit (not that it will be called that) plus other differences such as proficiency and attribute bonuses. Further a fighter doing a melee attack likely has a Legendary bonus in that attack, while a wizard casting a spell has legendary bonus in their spell attack roll. Both are likely to have a +4 (or thereabouts) attribute bonus. Using this info and extrapolating comments on on the fighter/wizard comparison in this thread, this indicates to me that a wizard can become trained in melee combat while a fighter can get up to legendary. This supports the difference of being only +3 in the wizard trying to be a fighter topic. In the end, I think this tightens up the gaps from the high points and the low points. The relative difference from the average attack at any given level is more important than the total attack bonus number. This makes eyeballing monsters super easy on the DMs side of the screen too. Something I am all for. While I don't think this is entirely accurate, I think this is very close.... [/QUOTE]

Verification