Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aaron L" data-source="post: 7193259" data-attributes="member: 926">Really?  Wow, I don't understated that attitude at all.  This is something that I especially LOVE about 5E; it eliminates "Phantom Proficiency" and means that being Proficient with a weapon actually really means something.  Sure, in 3E Elven Wizards were technically Proficient with the longsword, but did that "Proficiency" mean your Wizard would ever be able to actually hit anything with his sword?  No, it didn't.  That "Proficiency" was really nothing but a lie.In 5E having Proficiency with a weapon means your character will be able to use the weapon competently and actually hit with it.  Now being Proficient with a weapon actually means a character can use it effectively in combat, instead of just equating to a lack of a penalty.  Does that mean your Wizard will be as good at combat as a Fighter?  No, of course not, but it does mean that your Wizard's "Proficiency" isn't just a lie, either. I love this.  It means that if I want to play a Wizard who is proud of the fact that he is a fully trained swordsman and wants to use his sword to whack something, he can actually do it, and not be crippled by the fact that, although he spent years training to use a sword, he will still never really be able to hit anything with it just because he is "merely a Wizard" and all that training essentially means nothing because his overall attack rating is too low. In fact, this is actually one of my favorite elements of 5E, that all classes are equally skilled at landing attacks in combat, while overall effectiveness in physical combat is the measure of a mixture of factors (AC, Hit Points, number of attacks, damage capability, etc), rather than just an arbitrary limit on the ability of "non-warriors" to be able to actually hit anything.</blockquote>

Verification