Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 stormkhan Aug 04, 2014 21:35:40	I'm not sure if I am missing something but, looking through the Basic PDF, I noticed that all of the proficiencies for each class appear to be the same bonus and progression.  Am I reading this correctly?  For instance, if a 1st level mage and a 1st level fighter both have the same strength, are they both just as good with either a dagger or staff?
#2 RustedKitsune Aug 04, 2014 21:44:49	Yes, they would be equally good. In fact, your proficiency bonus is determined not by your class, but by your total character level. What class determines is features and the base proficiencies you get and have access to. That list applies pretty much at first level only though - afterwards you can pick up a new language or tool proficiency by downtime training (and some of us have modified that too)
#3 Ashrym Aug 04, 2014 21:55:08	Yes. You are reading it correctly but without the big picture. The fighter is more likely to have that STR score while the wizard would have gone with INT. The fighter has a better selection of weapons from which to choose and a combat style to apply. The fighter is more likely to survive melee to continue attacking by way of armor, hit points, and second wind. At higher levels the fighter has multiple attacks with those weapons while a wizard isn't likely to benefit from weapons over spells. The proficiency system is universal and simple, but how it's applied with each class makes a lot of difference.
#4 stormkhan Aug 04, 2014 22:12:40	RustedKitsune and Ashrym, thank you for your explanations.  It seems strange to me that a mage and a fighter, both wearing leather, with no feats, and with a 14 STR, would have the same to hit number.  I know the fighter would survive longer, but their skill with the weapon seems to be equal.  I would think that the fighter (or any martial class) would have a better to hit number based on their training.  The assumption is that the mage spend their time learning spells while the fighter learned weapons.  Is anyone proposing any house rulings surrounding this?  Just curious ... thanks again.
(Reply to #4) 2Chlorobutanal	stormkhan wrote:
#6 Ashrym Aug 04, 2014 22:39:10	I would not house rule it differently, tbh. In your example, the wizard is also trained in the weapon (ie proficient) and of the same physical stature. There isn't any difference between training in the staff and training in the staff. If the fighter wanted to specialize in the staff he would already be better based on his fighting style he selected to go with it and will improve his relevant ability score and use it with multiple attacks as he improves. Even if the wizard ignores INT for STR he would not have the fighting style or multiple attacks. The fighter is better with the staff right from level one even assuming a STR investment over more important stats for him like CON, DEX, or pretty much any other ability score. The same STR would actually make sense to have the same bonus because one of the design choices was a focus on the ability score instead of bonuses.
#7 BoldItalic Aug 04, 2014 23:41:36	stormkhan wrote:
#8 kanageddaamen Aug 05, 2014 6:32:40	I also don't think it is unreasonable to allow for a "jock" wizard who maybe spent a little too much time away from the books, and a (maybe a little sub par) fighter being about the same skill with a knife.  There would only be issues arrising to me if the fighter was not given options to BE a better fighter then the wizard with the same stats, but there are. By why limit options and potentially clever and interesting role playing potential?
(Reply to #8) 2Chlorobutanal	kanageddaamen wrote:
#10 Grazel Aug 06, 2014 3:21:27	BoldItalic wrote:
#11 ProphetSword Aug 06, 2014 7:53:50	The rules are very much in line with how older editions handled things.  In 2nd Edition, for example, both a Fighter and a Magic-User started with a THAC0 of 20 (the equivilent of a +0 to hit).  If they had a Strength score below 18 (lets say they both have a 14), they both had an equal chance to hit.  The difference would be in the damage they could do with their weapon of choice...but if they were both using a staff, they would both have the same damage output.   As progression through levels occurred, things changed.  The same is true of 5E.    1st level usually represents a character just starting out on their adventuring career.  Most of them are usually considered to have minimal training, and there's no reason to assume that before enrolling in a magical academy or becoming the apprentice of a local wizard that a spellcaster might not have had fighting experience.  They could have been a guardsman or a hunter, so it's feasible that they might have had some minor training in melee combat as well.   I think the days of thinking of characters as being straightjacketed into roles are over.  There's a wide variety of characters that can be built with varied backgrounds.
(Reply to #4) Pauper	stormkhan wrote: