Benchmarking Skills

[Shellhead]

Although the focus at Rumbles is on feats, there are also certain benchmarks that we use as a short hand for comparisons in addition to feats. One easy example is Marvel strength class system from the old handbooks. While Class 75 is not necessarily interpreted as simply lifting 75 tons, we all understand that a Class 100 character is significantly stronger than a Class 75 character. In a straightforward contest of strength, like say arm-wrestling, the Class 100 guy always beats the Class 75 guy.

Are there some comparable benchmarks that we can use for skills? I would like to think so. For example, a modern character who is a military veteran can probably be assumed to have at least basic proficiency with firearms, HTH and some survival skills like reading a compass. A character with multiple PhDs can be assumed to have a certain level of overall intelligence and knowledge of those fields covered by the PhDs. And a character with a black belt in a martial art has at least a comparable level of skill with another character with a black belt in the same martial art, though one of them may have additional advantages like greater strength, reach, speed, etc, as well possibly superior innate aptitude.

In absence of relevant feats, benchmarks should carry some weight. But I could see relevant feats being more important than the benchmarks, as long as they are not obvious outlier feats.

[Sharpandpointies]

And a character with a black belt in a martial art has at least a comparable level of skill with another character with a black belt in the same martial art, though one of them may have additional advantages like greater strength, reach, speed, etc, as well possibly superior innate aptitude.

While I detest nitpicking (okay, that's a lie), I'll start off by saying that 'having a Black Belt' is a fairly meaningless thing with regards to actual fighting. Just to get that out there.

As for Benchmarking stuff, some things will fall into the common sense area. Someone with actual, relevant training will be a better fighter than someone without. A doctor will have better medical skills than a person with zero education and training. Etc. If someone comes out with an article pointing out that 'Green Berets are trained in survival skills', then clearly the average Green Beret will have some kind of survival skills. A dude with a PhD in archaeology likely knows something about archaeologycitation needed. Etc.

Outside of those generalities, I feel it's into 'specific feats' territory when comparing them against other trained people.