The Meaning of Skill Ranks

[shurai]

After years of playing I'm trying to understand the meanings of the various skill ratings. In some games I've seen a table that relates various skill ratings to real-world equivalents, thus letting people kind of understand what the ratings mean. It usually looks kind of like this:

Rank Meaning
---- -------
  0  Utter beginner
  4  Early career or late apprenticeship
  8  Knowledgeable veteran or professional
 12  Among the best in a large town or small city
 16  Among the best in a large city or a small country
 20  Among the best in the world

What do folks think of this particular table: Is this about sensible for "standard" D&D?

Has there ever been an official take on what that table ought to look like?

 

[Rhun]

I think your table looks pretty spot on. That is about the same way that I would rate skill ranks. Except 0 would be Completely Untrained, instead of Beginner.

 

[shurai]

Shurai activates the bumpatron!

 

[Cheiromancer]

It's very odd, but I remember this thread as having a link to this article which talks about skill DCs and their meaning in relation to character level. One of the startling things about the article is its claim that folks like Albert Einstein and Aragorn are only 5th level characters.

So "best in the world" would be about 8 skill ranks, and a whole bunch of bonuses (synergy, skill focus, etc.)

I must have been reading another thread, but I can't find it right now.

 

[shurai]

It's very odd, but I remember this thread as having a link to this article which talks about skill DCs and their meaning in relation to character level. One of the startling things about the article is its claim that folks like Albert Einstein and Aragorn are only 5th level characters.

So "best in the world" would be about 8 skill ranks, and a whole bunch of bonuses (synergy, skill focus, etc.)

I must have been reading another thread, but I can't find it right now.

Very interesting link! Thanks for posting it. There's a lot to think about in there; I'm going to try to limit myself to his thoughts on Skills.

I find it interesting that his examples, as you say, rely on Skill Focus, which is rarely taken by D&D player characters. So, I imagine we can effectively bump his level calculations up by three for the typical character. As such, the adventuring wizard version of Einstein would probably be Level 8 or so, it seems to me.

It looks like his argument, with regard to skills anyway, is that a +15 or so is pretty close to the limits of human performance in the real world. I guess his point is that D&D is a lot more "superhuman" than we give it credit for. According to his analysis, it looks like my table is right for thinking about D&D worlds, which present an exaggerated (even by cinematic standards, it seems) view of human performance.

Also, in my mind, "utter beginner" is the same as "completely untrained." Maybe it's more clear if I add that to the table?

Rank Meaning
---- -------
  0  Utter beginner/completely untrained
  4  Early career or late apprenticeship
  8  Knowledgeable veteran or professional
 12  Among the best in a large town or small city
 16  Among the best in a large city or a small country
 20  Among the best in the world

 

[hong]

I find it interesting that his examples, as you say, rely on Skill Focus, which is rarely taken by D&D player characters.

Yes. This is because D&D player characters aren't usually very worried about skills unless they're directly related to killing monsters and taking their stuff. But in terms of the game world as a whole, there will be other people who _are_ worried about skills and so any argument about mapping to/from reality, as opposed to the narrow universe of PCs only, has to take that into account.

According to his analysis, it looks like my table is right for thinking about D&D worlds, which present an exaggerated (even by cinematic standards, it seems) view of human performance.

Eh. Nowhere did you actually say anything about "D&D worlds" at the start:

In some games I've seen a table that relates various skill ratings to real-world equivalents, thus letting people kind of understand what the ratings mean.​

(emphasis added)

 

[Rhun]

I find it interesting that his examples, as you say, rely on Skill Focus, which is rarely taken by D&D player characters. So, I imagine we can effectively bump his level calculations up by three for the typical character. As such, the adventuring wizard version of Einstein would probably be Level 8 or so, it seems to me.

This is true...although PCs rarely take Skill Focus, I imagine it would be quite commonplace among the commoners/experts of the campaign world. The armor, the potter, the tailor...they probably all would possess Skill Focus in their individual fields.

It looks like his argument, with regard to skills anyway, is that a +15 or so is pretty close to the limits of human performance in the real world. I guess his point is that D&D is a lot more "superhuman" than we give it credit for. According to his analysis, it looks like my table is right for thinking about D&D worlds, which present an exaggerated (even by cinematic standards, it seems) view of human performance.

While +15 is a good skill bonus, I've seen that type of bonus accomplished with 3rd and 4th level characters. I've got a 2nd level elf rogue right now with a +11 Open Lock skill, and that is without Skill Focus.

Keep in mind, though, that a high bonus in one skill may not equate to the same high bonus in another. I mean, it is only a DC20 to make a Mastercraft item, so a +15 to a craft skill means you are extremely good at crafting. A +15 to Open Locks is good, but even taking 20 on the roll means that some locks are outside your ability to open.

Also, in my mind, "utter beginner" is the same as "completely untrained." Maybe it's more clear if I add that to the table?

Yes, I missed the "Utter" part.

 

[hong]

It's very odd, but I remember this thread as having a link to this article which talks about skill DCs and their meaning in relation to character level. One of the startling things about the article is its claim that folks like Albert Einstein and Aragorn are only 5th level characters.

So "best in the world" would be about 8 skill ranks, and a whole bunch of bonuses (synergy, skill focus, etc.)

Justin Bacon is a bit odd, but he does make sense from time to time.

 

[smootrk]

I find it difficult to believe that one must be around 15th level anything to be one of the world's best potters, or an eminent professor of a field of knowledge. The ranks (and levels in general) do not equate to real world examples - just like many (most) rule mechanics for the game do not match the real world. The skill rule mechanics are just a way of orderly granting fields of skill/knowledge to characters.

Low level commoners/experts might even be exceptional skill users, but the DM must break or houserule these situations, which I have no problem with.

 

[CarlZog]

It's very odd, but I remember this thread as having a link to this article which talks about skill DCs and their meaning in relation to character level. One of the startling things about the article is its claim that folks like Albert Einstein and Aragorn are only 5th level characters.

So "best in the world" would be about 8 skill ranks, and a whole bunch of bonuses (synergy, skill focus, etc.)

I must have been reading another thread, but I can't find it right now.

Great article. My enthusiasm for the "low-level" game is renewed!