This table is silly, and doesn't match the design goal of making stats count more.

(0,3)
(1,5)
(2,7)
(3,8)
(4,9)
(5,10)
(6,11)
(7,12)
(8,13)
(9,15)
(10,17)
(11,19)
(12,22)
(13,25)
(14,28)
(15,31)
(16,34)
(17,37)
(18,40)
(19,44)
(20,49)
(21,55)
(22,60)
(23,70)
(24,80)
(25,85)

Beyond being in the ROM2.3 original source code, I'm not sure why it exists. Plotting the points, several are out of step with any sort of realistic curve. Most notably the section up from 17 that goes +3, +4, +5, +6, +5, +10, +10, +5.

The best curve fit I could come up with, which isn't perfect is this:

5.6e^{1.12 * 10^{-1}x}

(No idea if it will display here correctly)

25 = 92.1, 24 = 82.3, 23 = 73.6, 22 = 65.8, 21 = 58.8, 20 = 52.6, 19 = 47, 18 = 42, 17 = 37.6, 16 = 33.6, 15 = 30, 14 = 26.9 are the numbers by that formula.

Why did I do this math you ask? Because I'm really wondering what would be game breaking about allowing people to practice skills/spells/songs etc. to 90% or 100% in guild. For the 15 int char, it will now take 3 or 4 practices (31, 61, 90), 17 int are mostly the same-ish (39, 77), but a really smart arial, gnome, elf, etc. can legitimately still put 1 prac per skill, or just two and get that skill advantage via higher int without dumping extra time into unfun activities, or other advantages through having more practices/trains for gains etc. than their stupid counterparts.

This system (I'd probably put it at 90%, but I can see arguments for 100%) you make a cost benefit analysis with your characters resources (practices) vs. your resources (time).

Regardless of whether any Immortal agrees that we should be able to practice skills to higher %'s the current table is stupid.

To make learning rates higher across the board, possibly even all the same. However, to give high int the advantage in having skill %s early, like they ask for, make them able to practice up to 90% or something.

Example:

Str based skills should check STR for skillups (parry/possibly weapons/etc)

INT based - int

dex based dex

etc/et al.

My rationale is, I was a nerd in highschool - I was not good at sports. I couldn't play defensive tackle even if I wanted to, sure with a LOT LOT LOT of practice I could overcome the fact that in H.S. I was a 130lb bean pole soaking wet, but it'd take me longer than someone with the "recommended" physical attributes.

Elves should not advance quickly in parrying, because they suck at it.

Giants should, as physical based fighting is 2nd nature.

I don't think that there should be 1 stat to rule them all when it comes to skill learning.

giant with 75% parry probably parries more than elf with 100% parry. I should hope so anyway.

>giant with 75% parry probably parries more than elf with 100%
>parry. I should hope so anyway.

All other things being equal, they parry about the same.

But then the giant gets his parry to something like 80% and he's ahead forever after.

When you're naturally "good" at something, it is easier for you to excel at it as well. Hence, giants should learn 'fighting' stuff easier than scrawny pansy brainy elves

Now, if we are talking about a complex spell...or simple math..the elf is the obvious choice.

An elf has a highly analytical mind (I think of int as that at least), so he is far more adept at learning new ways to do something, and also seeing what does not work at its optimum rate. And he would be forced to excel and improve his technique because he is so less naturally gifted that he can not rely on raw talent to survive.

But even as he masters it, his physical attributes will limit what he can achieve compared to say a giant.

A giant of far less intelligence is not as keenly going to develop/refine their technique, but more just randomly stumble on to them. That the less refined technique is more effective for them means they'd have less reason to care about improving it, and their lower intelligence would make it all the harder for them to figure out how to.

At least, where I used to play 22 int gave 61% as it does here, then 23 gave 66%, 24 gave 71% and to learn to 75 in one prac needed true 25 int.

Wherever you played apparently changed it in a more reasonable fashion, though only if you assume practicing to 75% max, where I was looking at something higher.