Greetings!
Well, here is a Russian woman doing a variety of exercises and maneuvers. Very agile and coordinated!
What Dexterity score do you think she would have in D&D terms?
I think she certainly provides a bit of "real world" scope for what kinds of things a Rogue or an agile Fighter may be capable of.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
DEX 15 +1 (human) = 16; put Expertise in Acrobatics for a +7 at 1st level. :)
Solid 18, minimum. She has maximum balance and flexibility--well beyond what most normal people would be able to develop through stretching (I've tried). No room for improvement (other than physical power, which is a different deal), not sure how much more flexed she can be. She's basically a freak (but in a good way :P).
Dexterity includes full-body agility, fine hand-eye coordination, accuracy, balance, and flexibilty.
That video was almost all flexibility and balance. She's an 18 in those sub-stats. There were a few things involving general agility, mostly spinning a staff, which by itself isn't that impressive. But she did do at least 2 flips without using hands, a kip, and holding those poses requires a lot of the muscles used for general agility, so it's reasonable to assume she's highly rated in that, as well.
But the video doesn't show any find hand-eye coordination or accuracy, so those are complete unknowns.
So on average, she probably has a pretty high score in overall Dex, but Dex is a composite of many traits, so it's possible she has weaknesses in other areas that would pull her score down.
Just eyeballing it at least a 16. Well above the norm and pushing into the higher ends of non-enhanced limits. Depending on her other skills she might be a 17 or even 18. But not enough is shown. There is more to DEX than that. What if she cant hit the broad side of a barn?
Greetings!
Yeah, I originally clicked on the video in my feed because I recognize the song, Kykywka, which I like. I thought "Hmmm...a remix of this popular song? That should be cool". Then, I saw this kick-boxer, martial arts Russian girl out there, doing her thing, and I was pretty impressed. My jaw dropped for sure! Her balance, flexibility, agility is pretty damned stunning. Especially when one might consider that most American women would likely huff and puff like a dying hippo trying to bend down to get their fork that they dropped on the floor.
I thought, damn! So that's what a high-Dex Rogue or Fighter can do! ;D
Certainly, she isn't demonstrating particular weapon skills, but with the kind of skill, precision, and discipline that is required for her to have the kind of body she has--and the impressive skills she puts on display--I can't imagine developing weapon skills would be a difficult task for a girl like her.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on April 21, 2021, 03:05:03 PM
Greetings!
Well, here is a Russian woman doing a variety of exercises and maneuvers. Very agile and coordinated!
What Dexterity score do you think she would have in D&D terms?
...
Huh, What?
All I saw was a fit woman in skin-tight, form-fitting clothing doing all kinds of wonderful flexible things.
Her "Dexterity score" was not the kind of Score that first came to mind...
Hard to say for sure for, to encompass Dexterity as defined in D&D you would need to see how she performs under serious resistance. A lot of what she does here is certainly impressive but just isn't possible under stress and doesn't necessarily translate to performance under that stress.
Why wouldn't you consider this woman to be a Monk in D&D class terms?
Quote from: jeff37923 on April 21, 2021, 10:01:12 PM
Why wouldn't you consider this woman to be a Monk in D&D class terms?
Greetings!
That's a good point, Jeff! Certainly, a Monk could be a good fit for her as well!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Jaeger on April 21, 2021, 08:34:15 PM
Quote from: SHARK on April 21, 2021, 03:05:03 PM
Greetings!
Well, here is a Russian woman doing a variety of exercises and maneuvers. Very agile and coordinated!
What Dexterity score do you think she would have in D&D terms?
...
Huh, What?
All I saw was a fit woman in skin-tight, form-fitting clothing doing all kinds of wonderful flexible things.
Her "Dexterity score" was not the kind of Score that first came to mind...
Greetings!
Quite right, Jaeger! ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Holy shiitake. That gal is bad with a bo staff.
Monk, with an 18 Dexterity. Not a Level 1 character. Somewhere between Levels 6 to 10.
I wouldn't give her a high stat for Strength, though.
Quote from: jeff37923 on April 21, 2021, 10:01:12 PM
Why wouldn't you consider this woman to be a Monk in D&D class terms?
Hmmm. Flashy, MAD, with lots of barely connected skill sets, and pretty much useless in a fight (in just about every addition). Yep, you've sold me... she's a monk.
Not enough information. I see where she is regarding flexibility and spending hours training kicks and keeping balance, not where her NATURAL traits are regarding balance performing a specific skill. I would say her demonstration is more an example of character level and almost zero towards her actual dexterity. I would need to see her run some hurdles, walk a rope, etc to get a better read on natural dex, the ninja warrior style obstacles provide more feedback in so far as "stats".
She is flexible and has obviously spent a great deal of time practicing her routines. But she is not on the extreme outlier end with regard to balance or flexibility among the people who spend a great deal of time on it. She is an outlier among casual hobbyists and is on what I would consider a professional level in what she does, but again that is more a communication of character level and not genetic born innate ability.
IDK, a lot of these "need more info" arguments seem to be demanding an extreme standard of measurement, just to gauge a general innate stat, when a lot of this stuff is just skill, or highly reliant on it, which is a separate issue from natural ability.
- Need to see her hitting stuff (that's a skill)
- Need to see her jumping through hoops (skill)
- Need to see her perform under stress (skill and experience)
And a lot of these moves that she's doing take immense motor control and agility just to bend your body that way without falling. I can't do half the stuff she's doing, and I've tried. Granted, I'm an out of shape fat bastard who has barely trained in years, and a lot of this is skill, but a lot of these moves also take spatial awareness and coordination to do without hitting yourself or dropping your stick. When I was starting out with staff spinning I used to hit myself all the time. I still hit myself occasionally (albeit rarely), and I've been doing it for like two years. But this chick can throw a staff, spinning horizontally in the air and catch it above her head.
Could she maybe do it better? I guess, but that's more a measure of skill than natural ability.
I would say she makes a great monk, but then monks have been hot garbage in D&D for a while (I think 5E ironed out some of the worst flaws, but... boy howdy were they a hot mess in 3E/PF).
Quote from: VisionStorm on April 22, 2021, 10:44:44 AM
IDK, a lot of these "need more info" arguments seem to be demanding an extreme standard of measurement, just to gauge a general innate stat, when a lot of this stuff is just skill, or highly reliant on it, which is a separate issue from natural ability.
- Need to see her hitting stuff (that's a skill)
- Need to see her jumping through hoops (skill)
- Need to see her perform under stress (skill and experience)
And a lot of these moves that she's doing take immense motor control and agility just to bend your body that way without falling. I can't do half the stuff she's doing, and I've tried. Granted, I'm an out of shape fat bastard who has barely trained in years, and a lot of this is skill, but a lot of these moves also take spatial awareness and coordination to do without hitting yourself or dropping your stick. When I was starting out with staff spinning I used to hit myself all the time. I still hit myself occasionally (albeit rarely), and I've been doing it for like two years. But this chick can throw a staff, spinning horizontally in the air and catch it above her head.
Could she maybe do it better? I guess, but that's more a measure of skill than natural ability.
I disagree. Everything she does a person with enough time and focus who starts at an average baseline of athletic ability could do, even with regard to flexibility, she is not an outlier among females who have dedicated serious time to pursuing flexibility. The "talent" is hard to measure in the things she displays. I know numerous women and several men who can do a split past parallel between two chairs for instance. One of them was super flexible at the start, but most of them were not exceptional regarding flexibility and worked on it for a couple years. An example I will give is I have a buddy, who wondered if he could do a backflip (as a 27 year old adult who had never tried it) and he just did it, no warm up, no attempt with a spot, nothing past a Lady there told him to tuck his legs tight. he just did it. That IMO is a good measure of natural ability. Similar is punching power. You can enhance it with training, but people are born with the "touch of death", they dont develop it.
Edited to add: However I have no baseline for how long she has been training either. If you told me she took an interest in this stuff 6 months ago and is at this level now, 18 dexterity is within a possible stat (still want to see a few more tests), if you tell me she has been training 5+ years, well that allows a whole lot less of a measure for me than a skill vs talent assessment. Thus, as I said, I need more information.
Quote from: oggsmash on April 22, 2021, 11:43:03 AM
Quote from: VisionStorm on April 22, 2021, 10:44:44 AM
IDK, a lot of these "need more info" arguments seem to be demanding an extreme standard of measurement, just to gauge a general innate stat, when a lot of this stuff is just skill, or highly reliant on it, which is a separate issue from natural ability.
- Need to see her hitting stuff (that's a skill)
- Need to see her jumping through hoops (skill)
- Need to see her perform under stress (skill and experience)
And a lot of these moves that she's doing take immense motor control and agility just to bend your body that way without falling. I can't do half the stuff she's doing, and I've tried. Granted, I'm an out of shape fat bastard who has barely trained in years, and a lot of this is skill, but a lot of these moves also take spatial awareness and coordination to do without hitting yourself or dropping your stick. When I was starting out with staff spinning I used to hit myself all the time. I still hit myself occasionally (albeit rarely), and I've been doing it for like two years. But this chick can throw a staff, spinning horizontally in the air and catch it above her head.
Could she maybe do it better? I guess, but that's more a measure of skill than natural ability.
I disagree. Everything she does a person with enough time and focus who starts at an average baseline of athletic ability could do, even with regard to flexibility, she is not an outlier among females who have dedicated serious time to pursuing flexibility. The "talent" is hard to measure in the things she displays. I know numerous women and several men who can do a split past parallel between two chairs for instance. One of them was super flexible at the start, but most of them were not exceptional regarding flexibility and worked on it for a couple years. An example I will give is I have a buddy, who wondered if he could do a backflip (as a 27 year old adult who had never tried it) and he just did it, no warm up, no attempt with a spot, nothing past a Lady there told him to tuck his legs tight. he just did it. That IMO is a good measure of natural ability. Similar is punching power. You can enhance it with training, but people are born with the "touch of death", they dont develop it.
Edited to add: However I have no baseline for how long she has been training either. If you told me she took an interest in this stuff 6 months ago and is at this level now, 18 dexterity is within a possible stat (still want to see a few more tests), if you tell me she has been training 5+ years, well that allows a whole lot less of a measure for me than a skill vs talent assessment. Thus, as I said, I need more information.
I disagree with your disagreement. I trained karate for years when I was a kid, then later trained capoeira little over a decade ago as an adult and I have rarely ever met someone as flexible as this girl is. I may have met a few people who could do similar things, but they were always athletically inclined and well above average in physical aptitude beyond simple training. One of the most flexible people I ever met was a kid who took karate with me, who was the only guy in the class who could do a full split with ease, and he could do it from the get go, cuz he was naturally flexible. Everyone else took years of practice and never got that good. Women tend to be more flexible, but doing a split isn't the same thing as lifting your leg straight up over you head without forcing your legs apart, then holding it there while you bounce around on the ball of your feet without falling.
I have never met someone who had shit flexibility and motor control when they started out and turned into a freaking shaolin master by the time they were through. They may have become more competent, and even capable of doing stuff untrained people would find impossible, but none of them could bounce on one leg while holding the other one straight up then spin into a cartwheel from that position, then bring the leg straight up again repeatedly. In my experience people who don't already possess significant amount of motor control and flexibility don't normally get to the level of performance this girl displays, even with years of training. Is the theoretically possible with lots of yoga and years of rigorous training and physical conditioning? Mayyybe. But I've yet to see it. And making that claim in the internet cuz you've known outliers personally, or cuz you've seen tons of people do it thanks to the proliferation of videos online doesn't mean just any rando can achieve this level of performance just with plain old training.
I am giving her a 16 to 18 range.
I'd put her at a 16 or 17 for raw Dex, but would want to see the nunchaku segment in something other than silhouette to be sure. I'm kinda pissed at her trainers though, 'cause those high kicks are begging for a leg sweep. My guess is that she's actually had extensive ballet training before she started on the martial arts (notice the toe-pointing when her leg is up).
I'd say she's pretty easily in the top half of the top percent of people for dexterity (1 in 216). DEX 18.
--edited to add
Now that I think about it, in D&D 5th, she'd only need to roll a 17 naturally, which is roughly top 2%. I think I'd be willing to go with a DEX 19 on this.
Quote from: oggsmash on April 22, 2021, 11:43:03 AM
Everything she does a person with enough time and focus who starts at an average baseline of athletic ability could do, even with regard to flexibility, she is not an outlier among females who have dedicated serious time to pursuing flexibility. The "talent" is hard to measure in the things she displays. I know numerous women and several men who can do a split past parallel between two chairs for instance. One of them was super flexible at the start, but most of them were not exceptional regarding flexibility and worked on it for a couple years. An example I will give is I have a buddy, who wondered if he could do a backflip (as a 27 year old adult who had never tried it) and he just did it, no warm up, no attempt with a spot, nothing past a Lady there told him to tuck his legs tight. he just did it. That IMO is a good measure of natural ability. Similar is punching power. You can enhance it with training, but people are born with the "touch of death", they dont develop it.
Edited to add: However I have no baseline for how long she has been training either. If you told me she took an interest in this stuff 6 months ago and is at this level now, 18 dexterity is within a possible stat (still want to see a few more tests), if you tell me she has been training 5+ years, well that allows a whole lot less of a measure for me than a skill vs talent assessment. Thus, as I said, I need more information.
This is one of the reasons why I favor redefining abilities as "general competence in that area" rather than "innate talent".
In various games, raw dexterity is often used for things like dodge bonus and miscellaneous athletic feats. Likewise, raw strength is used for how much someone can lift.
In games, it isn't really relevant how many months or years it will take you to realistically learn a new skill. The important question is: how good are you *now* at miscellaneous physical tasks.
Quote from: jhkim on April 22, 2021, 07:21:04 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on April 22, 2021, 11:43:03 AM
Everything she does a person with enough time and focus who starts at an average baseline of athletic ability could do, even with regard to flexibility, she is not an outlier among females who have dedicated serious time to pursuing flexibility. The "talent" is hard to measure in the things she displays. I know numerous women and several men who can do a split past parallel between two chairs for instance. One of them was super flexible at the start, but most of them were not exceptional regarding flexibility and worked on it for a couple years. An example I will give is I have a buddy, who wondered if he could do a backflip (as a 27 year old adult who had never tried it) and he just did it, no warm up, no attempt with a spot, nothing past a Lady there told him to tuck his legs tight. he just did it. That IMO is a good measure of natural ability. Similar is punching power. You can enhance it with training, but people are born with the "touch of death", they dont develop it.
Edited to add: However I have no baseline for how long she has been training either. If you told me she took an interest in this stuff 6 months ago and is at this level now, 18 dexterity is within a possible stat (still want to see a few more tests), if you tell me she has been training 5+ years, well that allows a whole lot less of a measure for me than a skill vs talent assessment. Thus, as I said, I need more information.
This is one of the reasons why I favor redefining abilities as "general competence in that area" rather than "innate talent".
In various games, raw dexterity is often used for things like dodge bonus and miscellaneous athletic feats. Likewise, raw strength is used for how much someone can lift.
In games, it isn't really relevant how many months or years it will take you to realistically learn a new skill. The important question is: how good are you *now* at miscellaneous physical tasks.
Yeah, there's a lot of overlap between skills and "ability scores", and a great deal about this line of discussion is really all about "where do we draw the line?" Were does 100% RAW innate talent ends and training start? And to what extend could someone with seemingly low "raw" talent realistically develop high levels of ability with training and conditioning alone?
Over time I've come to think of attributes, stats, "ability scores" or "whatever they're called in any given game" more as "core abilities", or the central base from which more specialized "skills" spring from.
However, arguably some degree if "innate" ability does seem to be exist in real life. Question is: to what extend? And how does that fit in the game? To what degree are ability scores innate or a measure of general training and conditioning? Do we even need to draw the line, or just treat it all as potentially trainable?
Quote from: VisionStorm on April 22, 2021, 08:06:08 PM
Quote from: jhkim on April 22, 2021, 07:21:04 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on April 22, 2021, 11:43:03 AM
Everything she does a person with enough time and focus who starts at an average baseline of athletic ability could do, even with regard to flexibility, she is not an outlier among females who have dedicated serious time to pursuing flexibility. The "talent" is hard to measure in the things she displays. I know numerous women and several men who can do a split past parallel between two chairs for instance. One of them was super flexible at the start, but most of them were not exceptional regarding flexibility and worked on it for a couple years. An example I will give is I have a buddy, who wondered if he could do a backflip (as a 27 year old adult who had never tried it) and he just did it, no warm up, no attempt with a spot, nothing past a Lady there told him to tuck his legs tight. he just did it. That IMO is a good measure of natural ability. Similar is punching power. You can enhance it with training, but people are born with the "touch of death", they dont develop it.
Edited to add: However I have no baseline for how long she has been training either. If you told me she took an interest in this stuff 6 months ago and is at this level now, 18 dexterity is within a possible stat (still want to see a few more tests), if you tell me she has been training 5+ years, well that allows a whole lot less of a measure for me than a skill vs talent assessment. Thus, as I said, I need more information.
This is one of the reasons why I favor redefining abilities as "general competence in that area" rather than "innate talent".
In various games, raw dexterity is often used for things like dodge bonus and miscellaneous athletic feats. Likewise, raw strength is used for how much someone can lift.
In games, it isn't really relevant how many months or years it will take you to realistically learn a new skill. The important question is: how good are you *now* at miscellaneous physical tasks.
Yeah, there's a lot of overlap between skills and "ability scores", and a great deal about this line of discussion is really all about "where do we draw the line?" Were does 100% RAW innate talent ends and training start? And to what extend could someone with seemingly low "raw" talent realistically develop high levels of ability with training and conditioning alone?
Over time I've come to think of attributes, stats, "ability scores" or "whatever they're called in any given game" more as "core abilities", or the central base from which more specialized "skills" spring from.
However, arguably some degree if "innate" ability does seem to be exist in real life. Question is: to what extend? And how does that fit in the game? To what degree are ability scores innate or a measure of general training and conditioning? Do we even need to draw the line, or just treat it all as potentially trainable?
IMHO Attributes are mainly raw talent + some training maybe to hone it. Which is why having some skills or something to justify knowing/being able to do X a necesity IMHO.
Of course to better model reality (if that's your goal) you'd need a lifepath minigame a la Cepheus Engine (yes I know it's Traveller's I prefer to promote the OGL game).
Quote from: VisionStorm on April 22, 2021, 08:06:08 PM
Quote from: jhkim on April 22, 2021, 07:21:04 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on April 22, 2021, 11:43:03 AM
Everything she does a person with enough time and focus who starts at an average baseline of athletic ability could do, even with regard to flexibility, she is not an outlier among females who have dedicated serious time to pursuing flexibility. The "talent" is hard to measure in the things she displays. I know numerous women and several men who can do a split past parallel between two chairs for instance. One of them was super flexible at the start, but most of them were not exceptional regarding flexibility and worked on it for a couple years. An example I will give is I have a buddy, who wondered if he could do a backflip (as a 27 year old adult who had never tried it) and he just did it, no warm up, no attempt with a spot, nothing past a Lady there told him to tuck his legs tight. he just did it. That IMO is a good measure of natural ability. Similar is punching power. You can enhance it with training, but people are born with the "touch of death", they dont develop it.
Edited to add: However I have no baseline for how long she has been training either. If you told me she took an interest in this stuff 6 months ago and is at this level now, 18 dexterity is within a possible stat (still want to see a few more tests), if you tell me she has been training 5+ years, well that allows a whole lot less of a measure for me than a skill vs talent assessment. Thus, as I said, I need more information.
This is one of the reasons why I favor redefining abilities as "general competence in that area" rather than "innate talent".
In various games, raw dexterity is often used for things like dodge bonus and miscellaneous athletic feats. Likewise, raw strength is used for how much someone can lift.
In games, it isn't really relevant how many months or years it will take you to realistically learn a new skill. The important question is: how good are you *now* at miscellaneous physical tasks.
Yeah, there's a lot of overlap between skills and "ability scores", and a great deal about this line of discussion is really all about "where do we draw the line?" Were does 100% RAW innate talent ends and training start? And to what extend could someone with seemingly low "raw" talent realistically develop high levels of ability with training and conditioning alone?
Over time I've come to think of attributes, stats, "ability scores" or "whatever they're called in any given game" more as "core abilities", or the central base from which more specialized "skills" spring from.
However, arguably some degree if "innate" ability does seem to be exist in real life. Question is: to what extend? And how does that fit in the game? To what degree are ability scores innate or a measure of general training and conditioning? Do we even need to draw the line, or just treat it all as potentially trainable?
And can innate ability be improved, or is it a static thing? I'd argue the former. Intelligence can be defined as one's skill at learning mental skills, and I know from personal experience that the more I've learned the easier it's become to learn new things. Similarly athleticism could be defines as the ability to learn new physical skills, and again from personal experience, as I've engaged in weight training, it's become easier to learn all other physical skills. One could argue that this is a cross-skill benefit or synergy rather than innate ability, but I would see this as a bit of a semantic argument. For an RPG, after doing game designs with skill synergy and designs with skills increasing attributes, I'd days the latter is superior as it's easier to implement and can be used to achieve almost identical results.
Quote from: VisionStorm on April 22, 2021, 08:06:08 PM
Yeah, there's a lot of overlap between skills and "ability scores", and a great deal about this line of discussion is really all about "where do we draw the line?" Were does 100% RAW innate talent ends and training start? And to what extend could someone with seemingly low "raw" talent realistically develop high levels of ability with training and conditioning alone?
Over time I've come to think of attributes, stats, "ability scores" or "whatever they're called in any given game" more as "core abilities", or the central base from which more specialized "skills" spring from.
However, arguably some degree if "innate" ability does seem to be exist in real life. Question is: to what extend? And how does that fit in the game? To what degree are ability scores innate or a measure of general training and conditioning? Do we even need to draw the line, or just treat it all as potentially trainable?
Regardless of how much innate ability exists in real life, it isn't a part of RPG mechanics. In nearly every RPG that I can think of, character advancement doesn't follow from realistic training times and limits. Even the few that do have skill training times (like classic Traveller), they aren't trying for realism.
If a GM really wants to simulate their view of Nature versus Nurture, that seems like something for house rules or just GM-declared limits.
Quote from: jhkim on April 22, 2021, 08:57:16 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on April 22, 2021, 08:06:08 PM
Yeah, there's a lot of overlap between skills and "ability scores", and a great deal about this line of discussion is really all about "where do we draw the line?" Were does 100% RAW innate talent ends and training start? And to what extend could someone with seemingly low "raw" talent realistically develop high levels of ability with training and conditioning alone?
Over time I've come to think of attributes, stats, "ability scores" or "whatever they're called in any given game" more as "core abilities", or the central base from which more specialized "skills" spring from.
However, arguably some degree if "innate" ability does seem to be exist in real life. Question is: to what extend? And how does that fit in the game? To what degree are ability scores innate or a measure of general training and conditioning? Do we even need to draw the line, or just treat it all as potentially trainable?
Regardless of how much innate ability exists in real life, it isn't a part of RPG mechanics. In nearly every RPG that I can think of, character advancement doesn't follow from realistic training times and limits. Even the few that do have skill training times (like classic Traveller), they aren't trying for realism.
If a GM really wants to simulate their view of Nature versus Nurture, that seems like something for house rules or just GM-declared limits.
That doesn't necessarily follow. One can try to model the effect of a thing realistically without also realistically modelling how it changes.
I find D&D stats to correlate poorly with real life. To a certain extent the higher end is supposed to represent a mythical quality, representing heroes like Beowulf. For example, an Ogre in D&D 5e has 19 strength. That would mean someone with an 18 would have to be on a superhuman level just because of how close it is. Clearly that's not the case with how 18s are used, though. Or are they? The game through its various editions doesn't seem to agree with itself.
Quote from: Mishihari on April 22, 2021, 08:55:25 PM
And can innate ability be improved, or is it a static thing? I'd argue the former. Intelligence can be defined as one's skill at learning mental skills, and I know from personal experience that the more I've learned the easier it's become to learn new things. Similarly athleticism could be defines as the ability to learn new physical skills, and again from personal experience, as I've engaged in weight training, it's become easier to learn all other physical skills. One could argue that this is a cross-skill benefit or synergy rather than innate ability, but I would see this as a bit of a semantic argument. For an RPG, after doing game designs with skill synergy and designs with skills increasing attributes, I'd days the latter is superior as it's easier to implement and can be used to achieve almost identical results.
I think of ability scores as a combination of innate talent plus what the character developed as a child. All the things a person practices early will develop their innate talent (whatever that is) the most, fastest, easiest. That's why a character can get to 12 or 15 or 17 by the time they start going on that first adventure. Then it gets more difficult to improve. The way it is modeled in most games may not be all that realistic but the general slowdown corresponds roughly to the way it happens in real life.
The model is always going to have holes because of how complex most skills are and what abilities they draw from in what proportion. You can have, for example, the best raw Dexterity imaginable, but if your depth perception sucks, you aren't going to show as a "+3" or "+4" to hit with a bow once you get the entry-level training, and just to stay in the ballpark with another person not suffering under the detriment is going to take an insane amount of practice.
Arguably, people with "High Dex" should learn "Dex-based" skills faster, too, because of their brain already having spent a lot of early time on getting good at such things. I guess that's the basis for the early D&D bonus to experience for a high characteristic. I'm not sure I like that from a game play perspective.