dredknight
Auto-translated
I agree, it's just a rough estimate with some assumptions, but it shows that the chances for 5-6% skills are quite high (around 80%).
And rare (2%) skills are normal and shouldn't be found often, only when you're lucky. They are rare, after all.
However, maybe the mod authors think that rare skills should also remain relatively accessible, so they set it to 4%?
While 2/5/10/18 might seem harsh, the 2/6/11/16 option could at least be used for testing. If it's already been tested, then it's okay.
Correct (with +3). But regular luck gives ~7% damage per perk.
If there's a bonus up to 200%, then it's about ~10% damage per perk (with +3) and ~7% (with +2).
The problem is that players won't level up this skill if it doesn't look appealing. Bonuses of +1-2 are less than a +2 bonus. I suggest testing the perks and making sure that the average bonus looks at least as good as +2. Considering the strength of the units that receive the bonuses. Because if it's +1 for important units and +3 for minor ones, that won't be okay.
Also, this skill was very thoroughly tested a long time ago when we found out it only works for the Fortress. I can't come up with any numbers now, but I definitely don't lose sleep because of the difference.
In other words, the skill is made very weak, but the abilities in it are strong enough to compensate for that?
Then the +1/+1 attack/defense ability is even less relevant, since it requires two levels at once (one for the weak skill to unlock the ability to level up the ability, and the second for the ability itself).
Interesting, because in my mod (not from 5.5, but based on the old RPE with 24 classes), I use 0.0 ATB for mass spells, and the game hasn't broken yet. In what situations should the game break?