Minimum Training for proficiency

[Kobold Stew]

Hi--

several skills allow checks when "trained only": what consititutes minimum training?

Obviously, 1 rank counts as trained. But (in the case of cross-class skills) does half a rank allow one to make the roll? I know that you wouldn't get any bonus from the half rank, but would you get to make the roll (with whatevber stat modifier were applicable?

Thanks.

KS

 

[sukael]

Hi--

several skills allow checks when "trained only": what consititutes minimum training?

Obviously, 1 rank counts as trained. But (in the case of cross-class skills) does half a rank allow one to make the roll? I know that you wouldn't get any bonus from the half rank, but would you get to make the roll (with whatevber stat modifier were applicable?

Thanks.

KS

You have to have at least one rank in the skill. To note, there's no such thing as 'half ranks'--either you have a rank (or more) or you don't.

 

[Hypersmurf]

several skills allow checks when "trained only": what consititutes minimum training?

From the PHB:
Trained Only: If this notation is included in the skill name line, you must have at least 1 rank in the skill to use it. If it is omitted, the skill can be used untrained (with a rank of 0). If any special notes apply to trained or untrained use, they are covered in the Untrained section.

Now, of course, the Jack of All Trades feat in Complete Adventurer contains contradictory information:
Benefit: You can use any skill as if you had 1/2 rank in that skill. This benefit allows you to attempt checks with skills that normally don't allow untrained skill checks.

The implication of that wording is that what allows you to attempt the check is that (you are treated as if) you have a half-rank.

So there's room for argument, though the Primary Source rule would suggest that the PHB wording takes precedence.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

From the PHB:
Trained Only: If this notation is included in the skill name line, you must have at least 1 rank in the skill to use it. If it is omitted, the skill can be used untrained (with a rank of 0). If any special notes apply to trained or untrained use, they are covered in the Untrained section.

Now, of course, the Jack of All Trades feat in Complete Adventurer contains contradictory information:
Benefit: You can use any skill as if you had 1/2 rank in that skill. This benefit allows you to attempt checks with skills that normally don't allow untrained skill checks.

The implication of that wording is that what allows you to attempt the check is that (you are treated as if) you have a half-rank.

So there's room for argument, though the Primary Source rule would suggest that the PHB wording takes precedence.

-Hyp.

I think the intent of the Jack of All Trades feat is intended to simply allow you to make a "stat and synergy bonus only" skill check with trained only skills. i.e. you are counted as having a rank, but the rank doesn't give you a +1 bonus. So they simplified it to 1/2 a rank.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think the intent of the Jack of All Trades feat is intended to simply allow you to make a "stat and synergy bonus only" skill check with trained only skills. i.e. you are counted as having a rank, but the rank doesn't give you a +1 bonus. So they simplified it to 1/2 a rank.

But half a rank doesn't allow you to make a "stat and synergy bonus only" skill check with trained only skills.

To me, it looks like the author of the feat honestly thought that if a fighter puts one skill point into Disable Device, he can attempt the trained only check, because he has invested some training in the skill.

If that weren't the case, then the feat should have been worded "You can attempt a check with any trained only skill, even if you do not have at least one rank in that skill."

Half a rank is completely unrelated to what the feat allows, and mentioning it at all is confusing.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

But half a rank doesn't allow you to make a "stat and synergy bonus only" skill check with trained only skills.

You are kind of missing the point of my post. I explained what I think the INTENT is.

You are getting hung up on a technicality.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I explained what I think the INTENT is.

Oh, I think the intent, absolutely, is that you can effectively ignore the 'trained only' limitation. It specifically states that you can attempt checks where you normally couldn't. It's certainly how I'd rule the feat to work.

But I also think the wording shows that the author misremembered what the rule for trained only skills is... and that if that wording had appeared in an FAQ, that there would be a thread arguing that it is 'official' that much as one can sheathe a weapon as part of a move action, one can make a Disable Device skill check with only half a rank in Disable Device.

I don't disagree with you as to the effect of the feat. But I think that the explanation as to how the feat grants that effect is in error.

-Hyp.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Thanks. I should have known that. It plays into non-roll things too: "trained" jumpers do not land prone the way untrained ones do -- that seems to be worth taking a (full) rank for many.

Thanks.