When reading about various skills, I often hear players argue that while some skills are a "must" to 120, i.e. reach their "Legendary" status, for several others players, according to their experiences often suggest to stop much earlier, sometimes at 80, sometimes at 90, sometimes at 100, GM. The point is, that if a skill is "good enough" at, say, 80 to make it "meaningless" to work it up to 120, well, then why the hell that skill has a 120 Legendary level as attainable to start with ? Not all skills can be trained to legendary. Several stop at 100. Therefore, those which are designed to be trainable to 120 should have a real significative difference versus their lower levels. Particularly, when 120 compares to, say, a level 80, for example. Yet, often for some skills differences are so marginal that players suggest "not to bother" going past much lower levels and save up the points for something else. Well, then I think that those skills having too much a marginal difference between 120, Legendary, and their lower levels are not well designed as never ever players should feel "not to bother" training them to legendary because that status only makes it up for a very marginal difference. Even more, when this does not happen to all skills trainable to 120, Legendary, alike. Some are considered a "must" to 120, others, as I said, are not at all felt as such. Quite wrong, IMHO and it should be rethought. Perhaps we should see an overall skills revamp making the Legendary status for ALL those skills trainable to that level more and quite significative versus lower levels ?