sounds like the system from \"Secrets of Mana\" is training based. you improve a (weapon) skill by using that skill. such a system is used in one of my favourite games too (it\'s nethack *duck*) and its has its pros and cons:
+ you can\'t \"push\" a skill by using a completely different skill
(this was extremely annoying to me in \"Dark age of Camelot\" where people trained the PvP skills of their characters by using PvE skills that were totally useless in PvP)
+ use of a skill is an indirect measure of successful use. if you weren\'t successful, you wouldn\'t use that skill. therefore training based systems reward for successful use of a skill. seems realistic
- you can fool the system by using a skill without need
(example from nethack: casting \"Identify\" skill repeatedly improves your \"divination spells\" skill. even though you have nothing to identify. okay, this can be easily fixed...)
so you see neither the training based, nor the point based skill system is the holy grail. so are there any alternatives?
a friend of mine and I once thought of a system which combines the training based skill system of nethack with the point based system. the basic idea was that you have to spend points to raise your skill, but you can\'t raise a skill if you haven\'t also trained it. that is, your training limits the amount of points you may invest in a skill.
example: if you kill a dragon in a long fight with a two-handed sword, you gain points to spend on skills, and you get training points for using the two-handed sword. you may then raise your two-handed sword skill.
another example: you kill a dragon with one well-aimed bowshot between the eyes. before you got to the dragon you have used your lockpicking skill a lot of times to open doors. you have never used your bow except for killing the dragon. although the dragon earned you a lot of skill points, you may only invest it in lockpicking.
and it\'s realistic - your lockpicking skill killed the dragon. you wouldn\'t have got to him without it.

what do you think about this?