How much is a rank?

[Mystral]

This might seem like a bit of a strange question, but bear with me for a minute.

Also, just for simplicities sake, this thread uses Pathfinder rules. D&D-Rules apply as well, just so that we have a convention of speaking established.

All characters in Pathfinder (or D&D 3.x) have skill ranks. Some have a lot of those, because they are high level, have a class that gives a lot of them, have a high intelligence score, have taken that one feat that gives you +5 skill points or whatever.

They all spend them in various ways. Some spread them above as many skills as possible, some specialise, some just take all the knowledge skills or whateve.

My question is now two-fold:

First of all, what is a skill point a measurement for, in the first place? Training hours? Aptitude? Invested natural talent?

Second of all, what is the difference between a character who has 1 point invested, and who has 2 points invested, and so on, in a roleplaying sense. What is the usual benchmark of a master, or a legendary figure in that skill? How big is the leap between these skills?

For a long time, assigning skills has been the hardest part of character creation for me, because I was never quite sure how high I should push those numbers to represent the character I was aiming for. Perhaps some of you could help me with your opinions?

And please, no optimisation discussions. This thread is concerning the question of how the crunch of the skill points translates into the fluff.

[ComaVision]

I think that's campaign dependent. For instance, in my games the strongest humans are level 6. Those would be captains of the guard and stuff like that.

So, a master blacksmith might just be an Expert 3, making the masters of my setting having like 6 ranks in their craft.

[Chronos]

In 3.5, a legendary character is, roughly speaking, one of level 11 or higher. Assuming that a legendary blacksmith or whatever has maxed out his Craft skill, this would mean that 14 is a legendary number of ranks (I think this would be equivalent to 11 ranks in Pathfinder, right?).

[icefractal]

If going purely off ranks, I'd say that 1 rank is journeyman, 3-4 is a master (for a class skill). However, people in world don't generally "see" ranks, they see the final results. So by that definition:
Able to hit DC 15 reliably (while taking 10): Journeyman
Able to hit DC 20 reliably: Master - this one's pretty clear, since that's the DC to create masterwork items.

After that I like to go by barely possible -> standard -> trivial as my category system, meaning something that a master can only do on his best day, a grandmaster can accomplish regularly, and someone even better could do trivially. In d20, that's a +10 difference, so:
Able to hit DC 30 reliably: Grandmaster
Able to hit DC 40 reliably: Legend
Able to hit DC 50 reliably: Myth

What counts toward those totals is up for discussion. I'd assume that assistance doesn't. Someone who can hit DC 20 with a pair of assistants may be producing masterwork items, but wouldn't be considered a master-whatever.

Other things, like magic tools, temporary buffs, it depends who's judging and what they can perceive. If someone visibly has a spell cast on them before performing some amazing feat, people may see that as more an example of the spell's power than their own skill. But if the sculptor is that good because he has a Headband of Int and a magic chisel, but nobody watching him can detect magic, then it'd just appear that he's incredibly skilled.

Edit: Corrected initial numbers for Pathfinder.

[BowStreetRunner]

I consider the ranks to be actual trained/learned ability as opposed to the bonuses from high attributes which represent natural talent. Feats are usually somewhat self-explanatory as to where they fit in. So for the sake of this discussion, I am going to set aside the bonuses and just focus on actual ranks.

As others have pointed out, what those ranks translate into depends a bit on the campaign world - whether a master craftsman is someone with 6 ranks or 10 ranks will vary from world to world. However, the DCs of each task remain mostly static from campaign to campaign, so those are a better measure to use. Let's consider for a moment the DCs for crafting melee weapons using Craft (Weaponsmithing). With a DC 12 you can create simple weapons, a 15 is needed for martial weapons, and an 18 for exotic weapons. To craft a masterwork item requires a DC 20 check.

Assuming the craftsman takes 10 on his checks and has no other modifiers, 2, 5, 8, and 10 ranks respectively are necessary to complete each task above. So a course of instruction and practice that includes all of the necessary information to create a simple weapon is then equal to two ranks, and so on.

[jiriku]

Skill points measure life experience. This could be training or practical experience. Aptitude would be covered under ability score bonuses, and talent (if that's different from aptitude somehow) would be modeled with feats that grant skill check bonuses.

In general, a commoner is assumed to have ability scores no higher than 13, so the ability to take 10 and hit that "average" DC 15 100% of the time requires 4 ranks in a skill and a +1 ability bonus from your 13 attribute. Thus, I'd say that 4 ranks represents solid proficiency with a task -- the level of a professional, but one of no exceptional talent. If you hired someone with 4 ranks to do a job for you, you'd expect the job to be done professionally but in a workmanlike way. Someone with 4 ranks in accounting could file your taxes without breaking the law, someone with 4 ranks in cooking could prepare your lunch without burning it or poisoning you, etc.

However, someone with real talent and top-notch equipment could impress you with those 4 ranks. With Skill Focus and a masterwork tool, the bonus is 1+4+3+2 = +10, enough to take 10 and hit the "masterwork" DC of 20 100% of the time. We're impressed when someone hits the 20 DC -- they find that tax loophole that doubles the return check, or they serve us the best steak we've had in years. Somewhere between level 5-6, a commoner who maxes out a skill reaches 7-9 ranks and gets an ability score bump, and can reach that same level of performance without talent or money. If you work hard and apply yourself, you'll master your craft, but you'll see a lot of more talented people pass you by while you're slowly earning your skill bit by bit.

And of course, someone with talent and lots of ranks, say a level 6 commoner with a maxed ranks, skill focus, and a masterwork tool, has a +15 bonus: enough to routinely hit DC 25. These people are superstars at the top of their fields. They command top rewards and will be famous in the circles they move in.

I'd argue that people with bonuses substantially above +15, those who can routinely hit DC 30, represent people at the very peak of maximum possible human performance, or perhaps a little bit beyond what is really possible. These people are world-famous for their achievements, and perhaps have a place in the Guiness Book of World Records. They define their skill, and the records they set may stand for decades or generations before someone else comes along who can match their ability.

Bonuses above +20 represent fantasy or comic-book levels of ability that you don't expect to find in the real world.

[Ashtagon]

I recall that d20 Modern once noted that a person can be a legally qualified driver even in a nominally challenging driving test country, and still have, in game purposes, zero ranks in the Drive skill. That is because you can technically pass a driving test by taking 10. Day to day driving, likewise, you can succeed by taking 10 on your drive to and from work. The skill represents your ability to handle stressful situations and situations that would normally be seen on drag racing events or shows such as Top Gear.

Similar issues apply to most other skills. Even if you do it daily, it doesn't mean you have ranks in it; it could just mean you don't do it in "challenging" situations.

[Spore]

I have made it out that the increase from 0 ranks in class skill to 1 rank is a very very big deal. First of all, you're now allowed to roll even on restricted rolls like Knowledge. Secondly, you have the necessary competence in order to use the synergistic effects of a class in order to gain another (my, what a pretentious sentence I've written...) +3 simply from "this is a class skill".

Taking for example Sleight of Hand on a Dex 16 Rogue:
Having no training in it you can only do dexterity checks by RAW. Increasing the rank from 0 to 1 not only let's you perform theft, pickpocketing and all kinds of nimble tricks, it doubles your bonus from a measily +3 to a +7. Meaning you have learned that Sleight of Hand is more than nimble fingers. It's the art of distraction, nimble fingers, correct garments to easily conceal stuff and picking your targets.

If you're going higher than basic training, it's really just the DCs you could beat with a (sometimes) theoretical take 10. DC 20/25/30. DC 20 Sleight of Hand is one of the best thieves around, DC 25 is the best thief in a small city, DC 30 is starting to become legendary.