Trying to keep it short and simple ... though we could house rule this.Leitz wrote:Or +1d6 for each "success" of the supporting character, with a maximum supporters based on how many d6 the main character can roll initially? Thus a Master can integrate more help than a novice.
An alternative perspective is that people set the bar really low for "competent" (as do these rules, honestly) and then think it's a long way to the next rung up. I shot for qualifications in the Navy. Although I could handle a gun and hit the target, I never thought of myself as "competent" in the sense of ready to reliably hit a target in combat. That would have taken significantly more training. Similarly, I have been taught how to disarm an opponent wielding a gun. That doesn't mean I can do it reliably (what I think of as competent). On the other hand, there's not much distance from reliably hitting a target or disarming an opponent under pressure, to mastering those skills.Leitz wrote:Leitz wrote:If someone were Competent (2d6) wouldn't they reach Master faster than someone going from "Just has a relevant tool" to Competent? Is that what you want?I have found the opposite to be true, assuming one is in a position to learn something. I can teach an average person how to shoot, in a day. Becoming good takes a few more days, and after a few decades I'm still curious about what Mastery is.tibbius wrote:Yes. Tough to gain competence, somewhat easier to gain mastery.
I guess my take is that "competence" and "mastery" are indistinct terms, and that generally it takes longer to cross the threshold for performing a skill reliably than it does to ascend a few steps on the staircase toward mastery. In these rules I'm using mastery to mean a higher level of competence, not ultimate accomplishment.
