MelonHead said
Perhaps, but then you get into annoying debates about how long-lived characters would have an inherent advantage, and frankly despite what people may have told you, we're not all born equal. Frankly, there's no logical reason why a being who can live to three hundred couldn't have devoted 100 years to swordsmanship and then gunmanship, and yet be worse than a soldier who's devoted twenty years to just gunmanship.
There is if he hasn't practiced his gunmanship in a hundred years... Lol. Even for immortal characters, skills have to be maintained. Practicing one thing for twenty years straight would logically make someone at least just as good at it, if not better, as someone who's practiced off and on for two centuries.
But in cases such as these, where claims are made of superior experience leading to superior skill, I say prove it. This is where it comes down to writer ability. I'm never going to make a character who claims to be good at everything with no flaws, regardless of what ability might let him do that, because I simply don't have the skill to write such a character. It would be rather embarrassing to make such a claim and then get stomped by an average joe because I didn't know something my character was supposed to.