proficiencies Core Players book Path 2.1 (or whatever)

[Handbell]

first I love the book
but I have a serious question I have
proficiency
in Path 2e you has Stat bonus+proficiency mod (trained, expert, ect) and then Level
so If I am trained in say.. Nature
I have +2 for Wis, +2 for trained, and +4 for being level 4 = 8
However I see Nothing Like this in the Core Player book newer ed. 2. #
all I see is Stat + proficiency
so at level four I have =4
that is a BIG change and I hate
is that the RAW??? or did I miss something???

Minor obvious note the character sheet has the money back words.
Cp, Sp, Gp, PP

should be like you write money
$ 124.45
So it should go the other way

As I said I love the book, and want to get this point down before I use the book with Pl;ayers
so PLEASE help me understand
what are the RULES???

[MEATSHED]

Your proficiency modifier is (and always has been from what I can remember) your level + the 2/4/6/8 from the rank. So the stat+proficiency does have your level in there because your proficiency mod includes your level. Its on page 11 in the remaster rulebook.

[Handbell]

okay I read it several times and missed TWO words
thank you Meatshed.. NOT easy to notice.. Glad they didn's screw that up..
Should have mentioned it in more than one place... Hope they add it to the Advanced, to make it easier to find.

[thenobledrake]

There were no changes to Player Core that made this detail more obscure than it was in the Core Rule-book.

Both have identical glossary entries except for page reference numbers.

Page 11 of Player Core and page 13 of Core Rule-book have the same text as far as proficiency is concerned, the only difference being Player Core actually further emphasizes the Key Terms section the text is found in by making a two-page highlighted spread out of what was just plain text in the Core Rule-book.

Page 400 of Player Core and page 444 of Core Rule-book likewise share identical text on the topic of proficiency, and identical charts that lay out the proficiency bonus math in a different style.

So the whole "not easy to notice" and "should have mentioned it more than one place" claims are without any base to them.

There are enough mistakes and choices to potentially disagree with in the books already; you don't need to make up new ones.