What is with the seriously erratic proficiency progression for weapons / spells?

[thorin001]

Fighters are expert with all (most) weapons at level 1.
They get master with 1 group at level 3.
They get master with the rest and legendary at level 13
They get legendary with the rest at level 19.

Barbarians get expert with weapons at level 13 and no further progression.

Rogues get expert with weapons at level 13 and no further progression.

Monks go grom trained to master in unarmed strikes at level 13, but never become expert, and no further progression.

Paladins get expert with 1 group at level 5.
They get expert with the rest at level 15
They get master with 1 group at level 15 and no furter progression.

Rangers get expert with 1 group at level 3.
They get expert with the rest at level 13
They get master with 1 group at level 13 and no furter progression.

Compare this to the casters:

They all get expert with spells at level 12.
They get master wih spells at level 16.
They get legendary with spells at level 19.

[FireclawDrake]

Honestly the weirdest thing about the progression to me is monks never being Expert in unarmed., and jumping straight to Master.

Everything else seems fine and in line with the classes. Barbarians are not masters of the blade/axe... they hit things hard. Rogues are better at exploiting enemy weaknesses than being super proficient with their arms.

From a game balance perspective, spellcasters are all almost entirely reliant on their spells, and don't have more damage from rage or sneak attack or what have you to make up for the loss in proficiency, so for them it makes sense.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Monks get expert in unarmed attacks at third level; see Magic Strikes on page 98.

[master_marshmallow]

I agree they need to distribute more evenly, I also don't like fighters exclusively getting legendary.

Full BAB should follow fighters.
Medium BAB should follow the monk/ ranger progression
Half should follow the rogue/ barbarian progression

I don't like how different it all is.

[Drakhan Valane]

master_marshmallow wrote:

I agree they need to distribute more evenly, I also don't like fighters exclusively getting legendary.

Full BAB should follow fighters.
Medium BAB should follow the monk/ ranger progression
Half should follow the rogue/ barbarian progression

I don't like how different it all is.

There is no BAB.

[Pramxnim]

He's saying that classes that had Full BAB in PF1 should eventually get Legendary proficiency with weapons for a certain weapon group like the Fighter currently does. This would mean the Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, Paladin and Ranger.

Classes that used to have 3/4 BAB in PF1 should eventually get to Master proficiency with weapons for a certain weapon group. This would mean the Bard, Rogue, Druid and Cleric.

Classes that used to have 1/2 BAB in PF1 should eventually get to Expert proficiency with weapons. This would mean the Sorcerer and Wizard.

I don't quite agree that this should be the case. I'd be fine with the Monk, Barb, Pally, Ranger getting to Legendary and Rogues getting to Master, but I think the casters should be limited to Expert at most, with maybe the exception of a Cleric who wants to be a War Priest (they can spend a feat to get Master prof).

[Drakhan Valane]

Well, part of the benefit of ditching BAB is that there can be far more variation in proficiency gain. I like that Fighter is the only one that gets Legendary in nearly every weapon by 19. But you can give Monks Leg. in Unarmed, Paladins Leg. in their Deity's weapon, Rangers in a specific subset of weapons, and so on without having to be tied to a set level progression. Maybe that's not exactly how the playtest is set up, and maybe that's not what we end up, but the design space and flexibility exists if that works better than the current system.

[master_marshmallow]

Drakhan Valane wrote:

Well, part of the benefit of ditching BAB is that there can be far more variation in proficiency gain. I like that Fighter is the only one that gets Legendary in nearly every weapon by 19. But you can give Monks Leg. in Unarmed, Paladins Leg. in their Deity's weapon, Rangers in a specific subset of weapons, and so on without having to be tied to a set level progression. Maybe that's not exactly how the playtest is set up, and maybe that's not what we end up, but the design space and flexibility exists if that works better than the current system.

There's 4 choices for 12 classes, and your weapons are more or less chosen for you.

It's the same, not more, not less. Only with much less numerical variation to make the gameplay of martial builds actually matter.

That's not even the point, they should run parallel.

[NemisCassander]

I think that the main reason for the levels chosen as they are is for 'gaining something every level'.

You don't increase in proficiency at levels divisible by 4, because that's when you get item improvements.

You shouldn't get it at even levels, because of class feats. (Note that spellcasting improvements occur at levels where full spellcasters don't get feats, level 19 notwithstanding.)

You don't want to get it at levels 3, 7, 11, 15, etc., because you get general feats then.

Or, in other words, what levels do you get the _least_ improvement?

13 is very obvious, as it's prime and therefore no 'every X levels' won't get you a bonus. So as noted in the OP almost all proficiency increases happen there.

Even levels for spellcasters (up to 17) mean that you are not getting a new spell level. Pretty sure this is the reason for even levels getting class feats in the first place, but that also means that even levels are good for proficiency increases.

Whether this is a good idea or not is another issue (my simulation post in the General forum shows the damage ramifications of this choice), but the above would seem to be the reason why they are placed as they are.