Natural Talent vs. Training - A Skill Rank Problem

[Gan The Grey]

Some feats and prestige classes require a certain rank in specific skills in order to qualify for them. Synergy works the same way. However, your character must have actually spent the required number of skill points; your relevant ability modifier doesn't count for or against you in this circumstance.

Why is this? How is someone who has trained his Balance to rank 5 any different than someone with 4 ranks and 1 point of Dexterity? Aren't they EXACTLY the same caliber? Can they not statistically accomplish the exact same feats of balancilication?

Would the ramifications of allowing natural talent to apply to pre-requisites be so bad? Shouldn't naturally talented characters be allowed to learn things before their more mundane competitors?

I think we could take this to even higher levels. We could treat weapon focus as a way to satisfy base attack bonus requirements. However, you could only use the acquired feats with that specific weapon.

Thoughts in the Playground?

[Harperfan7]

It's more what they know than how well they can do it.

Five ranks in spot isn't literally better vision like an elfs racial trait bonus, its the habits and intentional effort of looking and knowing when and where to look, maybe at an instinctive level.

Ranks are more knowledge and effort than other types of bonuses, that's why they are a prerequisite.

That guy with 4 ranks and 12 dex doesn't know as much or try as hard as the 5 ranks guy.

[Murdim]

Skill requirements are actually a very easy, very reliable and very commonly used way to limit the access to characters over a certain level. Skill ranks can't be tweaked like spell level access, are more flexible than BAB or saves, and are paradoxically less ambiguous than character level (does it include level adjustment ? Racial HD ?)

[Koury]

That guy with 4 ranks and 12 dex doesn't know as much or try as hard as the 5 ranks guy.

I don't know if I agree with that. They both perform at the exact same level, after all. In what way does being equally competent mean not knowing as much?

[AslanCross]

Skill requirements are actually a very easy, very reliable and very commonly used way to limit the access to characters over a certain level. Skill ranks can't be tweaked like spell level access, are more flexible than BAB or saves, and are paradoxically less ambiguous than character level (does it include level adjustment ? Racial HD ?)

Agreed. I don't think it's really a realism issue as much as a game balance issue. I can't imagine what kind of horrific builds CharOp would come up with if requirements were based on skill modifiers and not skill ranks.

[Psyx]

You might have a Dex of 20 and be amazingly athletic.

Now; imagine someone says 'do a standing somersault'. You wouldn't know where to start, because you haven't the training.
Imagine someone less talented, but who has been to class, can do various other acrobatic things and knows the technicalities of it. They'd be much better equipped.

Another example: You have the reactions of a rattlesnake, and can just about drive. Now, someone puts you in a stick-shift, and tells you to get a car sideways around a corner using oversteer. Because you don't know the technicalities, once again; you wouldn't know where to start, no matter how fast you were.

[unimaginable]

Skill requirements are actually a very easy, very reliable and very commonly used way to limit the access to characters over a certain level. Skill ranks can't be tweaked like spell level access, are more flexible than BAB or saves, and are paradoxically less ambiguous than character level (does it include level adjustment ? Racial HD ?)This. Skill rank prereqs are another way of saying you have to be a certain level.

"They both perform at the exact same level, after all. In what way does being equally competent mean not knowing as much?"

The "naturally talented" one can get away with not knowing as much, because it comes naturally to him. It's like two people writing the same test... one studies their ass off, the other barely studies at all, but is a lot smarter and is good enough at BSing that they end up doing just as well. One of them clearly worked harder, even if the result is the same. Sometimes, the question at hand is not how good you are at the task, but how hard you've worked at it -- how dedicated you are.

[Gan The Grey]

You might have a Dex of 20 and be amazingly athletic.

Now; imagine someone says 'do a standing somersault'. You wouldn't know where to start, because you haven't the training.
Imagine someone less talented, but who has been to class, can do various other acrobatic things and knows the technicalities of it. They'd be much better equipped.

Another example: You have the reactions of a rattlesnake, and can just about drive. Now, someone puts you in a stick-shift, and tells you to get a car sideways around a corner using oversteer. Because you don't know the technicalities, once again; you wouldn't know where to start, no matter how fast you were.

Now, I'll agree that people require training in order to do something. I will agree that if you have an 18 dex, you won't be able to spontaneously somersault if you have 0 ranks in tumble and have never seen someone do it before. So I agree that natural talent shouldn't really apply when someone doesn't know what they are doing.

However, I think that once you have even the basics of training, your natural talent will take hold and allow you to do many of the things a highly trained, less talented person would be able to do. You do this by instinct and being able to make connections between simpler concepts to form more complicated ideas and processes. After all, this is how higher concepts are often discovered. Both by pure hard work, and also by the naturally gifted having an epiphany.

[hamishspence]

I remember a quote on the subject (probably in a Mercedes Lackey novel)

"Talent will only take you to Good. Practice will take you to Master."

[Koury]

Now; imagine someone says 'do a standing somersault'. You wouldn't know where to start, because you haven't the training.

In D&D 3.5, the only differences, mechanically, between being trained and naturally gifted are being able to make checks on 'Trained Only' skills and meeting prereqs for things.

Someone with 120 ranks in Balance can walk on clouds just as well as someone with a Dex of 250 (+120), after all. It makes no sense to say that only one of the above can take X feat that requires skill at Balancing but the other can.

That being said, skill prereqs are the hardest to work around of any type of prereq and are very good balancing tools. Be wary of making them so trivial.

[Gan The Grey]

In D&D 3.5, the only differences, mechanically, between being trained and naturally gifted are being able to make checks on 'Trained Only' skills and meeting prereqs for things.

Someone with 120 ranks in Balance can walk on clouds just as well as someone with a Dex of 250 (+120), after all. It makes no sense to say that only one of the above can take X feat that requires skill at Balancing but the other can.

That being said, skill prereqs are the hardest to work around of any type of prereq and are very good balancing tools. Be wary of making them so trivial.

Beh. I doubt it would break things many more times over than can already be accomplished by ambitious playgrounders. Might even give melee some nice things.

[Devils_Advocate]

It sounds like you're thinking about something along the lines of test-based prerequisites (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/testBasedPrerequisites.htm).

[Gan The Grey]

It sounds like you're thinking about something along the lines of test-based prerequisites (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/testBasedPrerequisites.htm).

Hey, thanks! I'd completely forgotten about that variant. One cookie for you.:smallbiggrin:

[Psyx]

However, I think that once you have even the basics of training, your natural talent will take hold and allow you to do many of the things a highly trained, less talented person would be able to do. You do this by instinct and being able to make connections between simpler concepts to form more complicated ideas and processes. After all, this is how higher concepts are often discovered. Both by pure hard work, and also by the naturally gifted having an epiphany.

That's not really the way it works, though. Use physics as an example.

1 rank in physics: Atoms are the smallest thing in the world
X ranks in physics: We lied. Electrons exist as probability fields. And bits of atoms pop in and out of existence all the while. Protons and Neutrons are big lumpy things made of other stuff.

If you needed to take a class that required you to know what 'X' ranks in physics taught you, being a genius with 1 rank would never compensate. You lack the technical language.

You drive? And have ninja reactions? But you wouldn't know the technicalities of oversteer, understeer, weight shift, the importance of camber or surface change, how to expect the car to react, what to actually do about it, etc. You lack the knowledge. And if you have great reactions to bail you out then that's all that they are doing: helping you react rather than anticipate.

Fencer with great reactions and no knowledge of the sport? All he's doing is waving a sword around quickly, not actually fighting with any degree of competence, and he could never learn phrases that rely on a certain amount of technical knowledge.

[Ravens_cry]

Hey, thanks! I'd completely forgotten about that variant. One cookie for you.:smallbiggrin:
I remember that one while reading Uneartherd Arcana at the library. It would be wonderfully flavourful for games where prestige classes represent in-world organizations.

[Gan The Grey]

That's not really the way it works, though. Use physics as an example.

1 rank in physics: Atoms are the smallest thing in the world
X ranks in physics: We lied. Electrons exist as probability fields. And bits of atoms pop in and out of existence all the while. Protons and Neutrons are big lumpy things made of other stuff.

If you needed to take a class that required you to know what 'X' ranks in physics taught you, being a genius with 1 rank would never compensate. You lack the technical language.

Sure. I can always find an exception to every rule if I look hard enough and formulate my argument in a specific manner. That's called a Nirvana fallacy. Saying that an idea is wrong simply because it isn't perfect.

EDIT What I mean is that this is a highly specialized example. Many of the skills in D&D don't require such complicated knowledge. Modern-day physics is extraordinarily complicated in comparison to even the most complex skill in D&D.

My point was this. 1 rank in Physics gets you the knowledge you need to get going. After that, your natural talent will allow you to use that base knowledge to make other connections, higher connections. Sure, you may not be able to figure out the terms for what you know, but that doesn't change the fact that you understand the mechanisms. Knowing the terms is only necessary for communicating knowledge, not using it.

True, you would have a slightly harder time in the early days of a new class, but once you connected a name with an already understood concept, you are good to go.


You drive? And have ninja reactions? But you wouldn't know the technicalities of oversteer, understeer, weight shift, the importance of camber or surface change, how to expect the car to react, what to actually do about it, etc. You lack the knowledge. And if you have great reactions to bail you out then that's all that they are doing: helping you react rather than anticipate.

Fencer with great reactions and no knowledge of the sport? All he's doing is waving a sword around quickly, not actually fighting with any degree of competence, and he could never learn phrases that rely on a certain amount of technical knowledge.

To the outside observer though, all of these are functionally the same. And again, phrases and terms only matter during the communication of knowledge, not the use of it. And there are MANY ways to learn something beyond verbal communication.

Personally, I have been blessed with an instinctual understanding of a large variety of life skills. I pick things up much faster than many people, even those who have been doing them for long periods of time. Why would it be a stretch to assume that I would be able to handle higher concepts without the requisite training?

[Psyx]

Sure. I can always find an exception to every rule if I look hard enough and formulate my argument in a specific manner.

These were literally the first three examples that sprung into my brain. I wasn't trying to find an exception. :smallannoyed:


To the outside observer though, all of these are functionally the same.

Not really. Good reactions/talent is no replacement for technical knowledge. Talent only matters when dealing with equally skilled people in opposition, or at the 'top' of the game. Talent may also help you learn faster (meaning it takes 1 week to pick up that skill rank, instead of six), but that has no bearing to the D&D rules.


Many of the skills in D&D don't require such complicated knowledge.

All skills are equal in D&D though. And I'd disagree to some extent. A lot of skills require highly technical knowledge that's only passed on via word of mouth (craft:armourer is the one that leaps to mind) and isn't found in books (trade secrets) and is based on many lifetimes of experimentation and experience.


Why would it be a stretch to assume that I would be able to handle higher concepts without the requisite training?

Because you don't have the grounding. Back to physics: If you had the 1 rank in physics, and I started talking about gluons; it wouldn't matter how smart you were, you'd be lost. The only way to avoid that is to teach you that atoms aren't the smallest thing in the universe, which essentially is teaching you physics 2. Another random example: Swimming. I can swim pretty well, and so can you (probably), but do you know how to increase your ability to hold your breath by about 50%? It takes about 5 minutes of training to do so, but you'd never know unless taught. Again; I am literally picking random examples here. Higher learning requires a technical grounding. You might whup everyone of equal learning to yourself via talent, but training is what really matters. Of course; YM*D*V!

[Gan The Grey]

Not really. Good reactions/talent is no replacement for technical knowledge. Talent only matters when dealing with equally skilled people in opposition, or at the 'top' of the game. Talent may also help you learn faster (meaning it takes 1 week to pick up that skill rank, instead of six), but that has no bearing to the D&D rules.

That's not entirely true. Training is acquired knowledge. Talent is instinctual knowledge. They are both valid types of knowledge, and both can lead to the same outcome. Someone with a single rank of balance will probably be able to do all of the exact same things as someone without the training, but having a +1 dex modifier. They instinctively understanding their bodies and how it interacts with reality better than the trained person. Talent is like saying you don't have to pick up a skill rank, you basically generated a rank out of thin air by applying an instinctual understanding of a concept.


All skills are equal in D&D though. And I'd disagree to some extent. A lot of skills require highly technical knowledge that's only passed on via word of mouth (craft:armourer is the one that leaps to mind) and isn't found in books (trade secrets) and is based on many lifetimes of experimentation and experience.

Bluff, Concentration, Climb, Diplomacy, Escape Artist, Forgery, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Hide, Intimidate, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Ride, Search, Sense Motive, Spot, Swim, Tumble...All of these skills can be performed in real life by a talented someone with no training. I could argue that some of the other skills could as well to some extent.

As for highly technical knowledge that's only passed on via word of mouth, talented individuals can instinctively figure out a creative solution to a problem without the required training. In fact, it is sometimes said that some solutions could never be created by someone with the right training, as they have been programmed to think a specific way already. Besides, these highly specialized trade secrets? Probably not going to come up in a difference between the 1 to 5 ranks gained from talent as opposed to training. And for ranks beyond 5? Those are supernaturally skilled people, and they would most certainly be capable of instinctivey understanding concepts beyond their training.


Because you don't have the grounding. Back to physics: If you had the 1 rank in physics, and I started talking about gluons; it wouldn't matter how smart you were, you'd be lost. The only way to avoid that is to teach you that atoms aren't the smallest thing in the universe, which essentially is teaching you physics 2. Another random example: Swimming. I can swim pretty well, and so can you (probably), but do you know how to increase your ability to hold your breath by about 50%? It takes about 5 minutes of training to do so, but you'd never know unless taught. Again; I am literally picking random examples here. Higher learning requires a technical grounding. You might whup everyone of equal learning to yourself via talent, but training is what really matters. Of course; YM*D*V!

Until I asked you to define a gluon. And learning what a gluon is isn't enough to get another rank in Knowledge(Physics). Besides, I might instinctively know from my high intelligence and my 1 rank that there is something smaller than an atom, just not the name of it.

I have no training in biochemistry, but that doesn't stop me from having in-depth conversations with my buddy in the doctorate program of UT Southwestern. And understanding what he's talking about. Could I teach a biochemistry class? Not in a way that people would happily pay me to do so. But I understand enough about many, many different subjects to be able to do a passable job for my 2 to 3 points of Intelligence modifier. Just don't expect my students to understand specific terms when they first hear them in a real science class, but again, this is a problem of communication, not knowledge. A french-speaking student might have the same problems initially in an english-speaking class.

EDIT Okay, yeah, probably not really. :smalltongue: But for any of the D&D skills that are a part of this discussion, it is much, MUCH more likely for it to work that way. So...can we get back to that, and away from the scary, scary world of modern day science? :smalleek:

About the breathing thing. How would I 'never' know unless taught? How did the first person to ever do it know? They probably figured it out due to a moment of inspiration, or already unconsciously knew how to do it. Our minds are freakin vaults of information that we can't consciously access. You never know what you have in there until you are placed in a certain situation.

[Snake-Aes]

A fun little example of practice and theory in videogames.
If you are agile enough, you can compensate for the weapon recoil in counter-strike as you shoot. <--Dex
If you search enough on it, you know the recoil of each weapon has a pattern, like how moving your mouse as if drawing a "7" keeps the line of fire steady with the M4A1. <--BAB

[Psyx]

Bluff, Concentration, Climb, Diplomacy, Escape Artist, Forgery, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Hide, Intimidate, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Ride, Search, Sense Motive, Spot, Swim, Tumble...All of these skills can be performed in real life by a talented someone with no training. I could argue that some of the other skills could as well to some extent.

I would argue that for the most part, any amount of natural talent in at least 75% of those skills would be totally eclipsed by someone of average talent and a week (1 skill point) of training under their belt. Would you even know how to signal the horse without training in ride? Sense Motive is an absolute classic; as most policemen are statistically no better at catching a lie than a layman, and only good training in NLP makes much difference.

I just don't believe that talent is anywhere as important in training in life, and it's born out by my experiences.



About the breathing thing. How would I 'never' know unless taught? How did the first person to ever do it know?

I'm not too sure, but I've been an avid swimmer all my life, and used to spend as much time under the water as on top of it, but I never knew about it until I took a diving course...

[Person_Man]

You are correct sir - it makes no sense.

The 3.0 Skill system was an attempt to update the old non-weapon proficiency system (http://www.mjyoung.net/dungeon/char/step017.html) (Animal Lore, Rope Use, Weather Sense, etc) with an attempt to simulate a more "realistic" set of differences and progression between characters, and then that was shoehorned into their concept for prestige classes, where you had to "earn" entry by having minimum requirements similar to some of the old base classes (Paladin used to have a minimum Charisma, for example). 3.5 and Pathfinder consolidated it and made it a little more sensible. But it's all artifice with no real rationale, and you should feel free to chuck it overboard if it makes the game more fun for you.

I personally prefer a Star Wars Saga Edition-ish Skill system. Something like d20 + 1/2 your class level + relevant attribute + Skill Focus + racial and class abilities. No modifiers from items, synergy, spells, psionics, other feats, etc. I don't care if it doesn't make sense that every 20th level character would have a working knowledge of every Skill. It's easier, more fun, and makes combat more interesting.

[Gan The Grey]

I would argue that for the most part, any amount of natural talent in at least 75% of those skills would be totally eclipsed by someone of average talent and a week (1 skill point) of training under their belt. Would you even know how to signal the horse without training in ride? Sense Motive is an absolute classic; as most policemen are statistically no better at catching a lie than a layman, and only good training in NLP makes much difference.


The problem is drawing the line. How much of what you do is talent, and how much of what you do is training? In D&D, there is a clear distinction for the player, as he is looking at his character sheet and observing the numbers. For the character? He/she doesn't know how much of what he can do is based on training and how much is based on talent. He/she might say, "I've had a few days of training. That must be why I'm so good at X" where most of his/her ability is really coming from talent.

For riding, I don't know what I'd know until I'm placed in that situation. And for the policeman...I don't know where you are getting your statistics because I know plenty of policemen, and they were all generally good at catching people in a lie. I lived in a household full of them, and I knew all of their friends fairly well.


I just don't believe that talent is anywhere as important in training in life, and it's born out by my experiences.

I'm not too sure, but I've been an avid swimmer all my life, and used to spend as much time under the water as on top of it, but I never knew about it until I took a diving course...

Don't take this the wrong way, but maybe you just aren't naturally talented. You focus on what you know vs. what you feel. I'm different. I have always been naturally gifted at things, so I tend to place more emphasis on talent. However, due to this, I tend to give up on things once they get difficult, as I'm not used to that barrier.

Training only greatly overshadows talent once you move beyond 4-5+ ranks difference. It is nigh-impossible in the real world to have 4+ ranks of talent, but you can go up much higher with ranks. Looking at it that way, then yes, training is better than talent. But its like a graph where both lines stay even for the first few numbers, then one line drops off and disappears at a certain point in the chart. For awhile there, they run neck and neck.

Answer me this. Why should a character with 10 ranks in balance and a 10 Dex be allowed to enter a PRC, but a character with 9 ranks and an 18 dex not?

[Xuc Xac]

Bluff, Concentration, Climb, Diplomacy, Escape Artist, Forgery, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Hide, Intimidate, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Ride, Search, Sense Motive, Spot, Swim, Tumble...All of these skills can be performed in real life by a talented someone with no training. I could argue that some of the other skills could as well to some extent.


I would say that those could be performed without being trained to do it by a teacher, but they couldn't be done without practice and practice is acquiring skill ranks too. People who forge documents and counterfeit currency most likely never took a "Forgery 101" class in school, but they probably studied art, graphic design, printing techniques, etc. and then applied that knowledge to copying something instead of designing a new thing from scratch.

Having a teacher makes things much easier because you don't have to figure out everything yourself. You can benefit from the fact that other people already figured most of it out before you were born so you can learn the correct way the first time.

Having a higher attribute bonus doesn't mean that you understand more than someone else with a +0 stat mod and the same skill level. It just means that using that level of skill is much easier for you. You both have the same knowledge of what to do, but Mr. Talented has an easier time actually doing it. Requiring skill ranks as a prerequisite is appropriate if the prerequisite is based on "what you know". If the prerequisite is based on "what you can do", then the total modifier would be appropriate but in that case it would be even more appropriate to require a particular accomplishment (e.g. "must have crafted a masterwork widget") rather than ability ("must have Craft (widget) +11").

[Psyx]

For riding, I don't know what I'd know until I'm placed in that situation. And for the policeman...I don't know where you are getting your statistics because I know plenty of policemen, and they were all generally good at catching people in a lie. I lived in a household full of them, and I knew all of their friends fairly well.

I digress, but out of interest in the subject:

As the riding thing goes; you wouldn't know how to pull the reins or otherwise steer the horse, or the commonly used words of command for horses.

As for the lie thing; the specific statistics are cited in one of Derren Brown's books, although I can't remember the title. Everyone assumes that police are good at catching out a liar, but given a blind test (ie, the liar is not aware of the profession of the interviewer, so is not intimidated into making tells) there is no statistical difference between the lie-detection abilities of police and anyone else. Which makes sense when you think about it, because we all get lied to every day, and so all get a lot of informal practice. I don't know if you're a parent, but being able to pick up on your child's lies is just as important for parents as the skill is for police. The only profession that scored significantly higher than norm were professionals from the security and intelligence services, who typically cannot rely on intimidation and revealing their authority to pressure subjects in the same manner as police, and typically receive training that's closer to modern NLP.



Don't take this the wrong way, but maybe you just aren't naturally talented.

Nah...that's not it :smallwink:

I genuinely tend to do well very quickly at things I turn my hand to. It's just that I've seen natural talent gets it's ass handed to it by hard training enough times [figuratively and literally] to believe that talent mostly matters in regard to speed of learning and when all else is equal.

You focus on what you know vs. what you feel. I'm different. I have always been naturally gifted at things, so I tend to place more emphasis on talent. However, due to this, I tend to give up on things once they get difficult, as I'm not used to that barrier.



Answer me this. Why should a character with 10 ranks in balance and a 10 Dex be allowed to enter a PRC, but a character with 9 ranks and an 18 dex not?

Because PrCs are written with the explicit idea that there is a minimum level entry requirement. It's the way that the mechanics work.

Plus: What your saying is that a character should be able to enter a PrC if he can (say) climb 'that' cliff by brute force. Whereas they should be only able to enter if they understand the techniques of climbing, and that knowledge is used as a grounding for the improved techniques in our hypothetical master climber PrC.

[dgnslyr]

I thought it was to limit entry level, kinda like BAB with most PrCs. It doesn't necessarily make that much sense, but it does prevent getting into a Prc or taking a feat earlier than intended.

[Telonius]

Why is this? How is someone who has trained his Balance to rank 5 any different than someone with 4 ranks and 1 point of Dexterity? Aren't they EXACTLY the same caliber? Can they not statistically accomplish the exact same feats of balancilication?

If the prereq is based on total modifier, if he carries too much stuff, or gets hit with a Ray of X, or otherwise takes penalties to the ability, then he's disqualified from the whole PrC until the modifier improves. If it's based on ranks, he has the PrC's abilities forever.

[Savannah]

I'm with the others; more ranks = more technical knowledge and that's what is being measured, as well as being a way to balance things.


Bluff, Concentration, Climb, Diplomacy, Escape Artist, Forgery, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Hide, Intimidate, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Ride, Search, Sense Motive, Spot, Swim, Tumble...All of these skills can be performed in real life by a talented someone with no training. I could argue that some of the other skills could as well to some extent.

Oh, but ranks in Handle Animal are very significant. You can be really good with animals without much training, but as soon as you get an animal that doesn't respond to the one or two methods you know, you're in trouble. Having more ranks = having more ways to get the animal to do what you want, and understanding why those methods work so you can create your own if the ones you know don't work for a particular animal.

I picked that example because in real life I've got maxed out ranks in Handle Animal. I'm sure professionals in any of those other fields can give you similar explanations of why ranks are far more important than an outsider would guess.

[jiriku]

Answer me this. Why should a character with 10 ranks in balance and a 10 Dex be allowed to enter a PRC, but a character with 9 ranks and an 18 dex not?

The answer is obvious. Because the first character is level 7 and the second character is level 6, and the prestige class is balanced against the assumption that a character can't take his first level in the class until level 8. You really don't need anything more. It's a game mechanic. It's not elegant and it's not beautiful, but like a pillar holding up the roof over your head, it's not a good idea for you to jack around with it too much.

If you WANT more reasons why, then you'll have to invent them, because D&D does not provide them. If you like made-up reasons, here are several that are plausible despite the fact that I invented them just now:


Prestige classes represent advanced training and education (archmage, thief-acrobat, exemplar). Characters who have not completed basic training are not properly prepared for this advanced training. This is the reason that, for example, you don't see grade-school children enrolling in doctoral programs, no matter how talented they are. They lack skill ranks in the necessary skills. Now, some bright people get into college early, but you'll notice that they tend to either take advanced placement classes in high school to earn extra skill ranks, or they take remedial classes in college to earn extra skill ranks. They still get those skill ranks, they just go on lots of academic adventures to earn more XP and level up faster.
Prestige classes represent actual life experience from the school of hard knocks(seeker of the song, green star adept, blood magus); the class levels are mechanical representations of things that you do with your life. Now, some life experiences aren't very educational to you unless you've been prepared by having specific other experiences. For example, you're not going to get a lot out of being married if you haven't already had the life experiences necessary to be a good relationship partner. Getting fired from your job and living destitute under a bridge is unlikely to be a positive experience for you unless you've previously had powerful religous experiences that make you believe all things happen for your ultimate good. So, anyone can have these life experiences, but only people who've had the proper preparatory experiences (as represented by skill ranks) can get enough benefit from those experiences to add class levels in a prestige class.


I'll try to give you a clear real-world example:

Let's say being a musician is a base class, and music teacher is a prestige class. They're really just skills in D&D terms, but roll with me for a moment. I have previously been both a musician and a music teacher. I was quite good, and played well without much experience or effort due to my high ability modifier. I also learned fast and built up many skill ranks over the years, owing to the bonus skill points I get from my Intelligence modifier. OTOH, I knew some talentless individuals who worked hard and practiced a lot but never learned to play well (skill ranks, but ability penalty). I also knew some extremely talented musicians who were far better than I was with even less effort. Their ability bonus was much larger than mine, even though they lacked skill ranks.

Thing is...I was a decent music teacher, and some of those poor musicians were also very good teachers, because of our education and because we had extensive experience with what worked and what didn't, and had experience overcoming performance obstacles like stage fright or muscle injuries or *ahem* inebriation. Those superstar talents? I never knew one to be a good teacher without first paying his dues, practicing, and building up his skill ranks. With only a skill bonus to guide him, he didn't know why he was good! He couldn't teach others how to overcome performance problems or break through learning barriers, because he'd never had any himself. He wasn't prepared for the music teacher prestige class, because he didn't meet the skill prerequisites.

Finally...some of your cognitive dissonance over the skill rank/ability bonus thing may come from the fact that you've got lots of ability bonuses, but just don't have many skill ranks in anything. You've already mentioned that you're accustomed to skating by on talent and that you tend to quit when you encounter barriers. If you're young (I don't know if you are), you may also not have lived long enough to rack up many skill ranks (most skills require years to master). It's actually rather hard to appreciate the value of something you've never had, especially if that something is intangible. And if you're used to doing things one way (bonuses), and have never really done things the other way (ranks), it's human nature to assume that your way of doing things is superior.

[Gan The Grey]

I don't think either of them are superior but for the fact that training can be taken to much greater levels than talent. In that way, training can be seen as superior.

Here's what I believe, boiled down:

Training and talent can accomplish the same things within the range of 1 to 4 ranks of overlap, as long as the person has obtained at least 1 rank of training in the requisite skill.

As for the characters being 6 and 7 level, that's a hasty assumption, Jiriku. The characters could very well be many levels higher and just haven't invested enough points into their skills.

Beh, I can see that I'm fighting for the losing team on this one, so I'll concede defeat. :smallamused:

[Jack_Simth]

Agreed. I don't think it's really a realism issue as much as a game balance issue. I can't imagine what kind of horrific builds CharOp would come up with if requirements were based on skill modifiers and not skill ranks.
Well, if you make it requirements based on *modifiers* rather than ranks/base stuff, then....

Human Savage Bard-1/Ur-Priest-X. 9th level spells at character level 10 (needs: Con 12+, Wis 12+, Cha 14+, Int 18+ to qualify).

[Mnemnosyne]

Personally I too think it's silly to limit entry to classes based on hard game statistics rather than actual ability in the game, so I like the UA Test-Based Prerequisites variant rule. It works, it makes sense in the game, and so on.

[Vangor]

Clearly a level requirement is the main concern of creating hard and fast "ranks only" prerequisite for a PrC. Except where a person needs to demonstrate study or value to an organization, there is not much in game reason for certain restrictions. Thus, while the level 1 wizard may not be allowed entry to the Red Wizards, why could they not have died and returned to become a Blood Magus, why the wait until 5th level?

For skill ranks and spell levels, the answer which satisfies me is needing to make use of what you will learn. Sure, what you may learn of Disable Device may be another rank, same as if you were just a Rogue, but this is the mechanics of skills covering a broad enough area to be generally useful. If you do not technically know how to disable traps well and just wing it, the PrC has nothing to teach you. Spells generally make good sense since what you are often learning are ways to alter or amplify your power.

What I don't get is base attack bonus being a restriction. The only times you really need to show training would be the ToB PrCs, but they have Maneuver restrictions. Do you really need the skill with the axe to become a Frenzied Berserker? No, you need to be able to be mad. And do you really need to have 5 base attack bonus if you cover the other parts for Hunter of the Dead?

I would sooner remove base attack bonus restrictions, but do include say one or two fighter type feats as prerequisites. Sure, pure casters are stronger, but stronger is relative, and I would see more gish players not hampered by needing 10 levels just to meet the 5 minimum BAB of a prerequisite.