User talk:Sentinelle: Difference between revisions
Sentinelle (talk | contribs) |
Sentinelle (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I trust your judgment, do what you think is right! :) There are a significant number of players who like to min-max this kind of stuff and make characters good at everything, and months ago I was myself confused about this expertise thingy (largely because the user interface with human racial proficiency was bugged, to be fair). Beginners may struggle to understand why their human rogue has 3 columns in the proficiency selection menu, with the last column working differently from the others. If they create a Knowledge Cleric, the expertise bonus will work differently than if it was a rogue. It's a source of confusion. This is why I think it's important to devote a few lines to explaining how it works and the difference between the two versions of expertise. I've been wondering for a while how to word it concisely. What is certain is that, for the second version of expertise at the moment, "no proficiency requirement" is more accurate than "providing both proficiency and expertise". Writing that we get both is easier and faster, but unfortunately, the fact that we can still choose to get proficiency in a skill with expertise (last time I checked) makes this statement false. If there is a patch that prevents selecting proficiency in a skill with expertise, and in the skill check interface with the dices, we see that, for example, the feat Actor also provide proficiency, then we should definitely use the wording that it provides both. Until then, I don't know, I let others be the judge ! For now, I'm not planning to edit more and I would rather let others do it. [[User:Sentinelle|Sentinelle]] 04:12, 29 October 2023 (CEST) | I trust your judgment, do what you think is right! :) There are a significant number of players who like to min-max this kind of stuff and make characters good at everything, and months ago I was myself confused about this expertise thingy (largely because the user interface with human racial proficiency was bugged, to be fair). Beginners may struggle to understand why their human rogue has 3 columns in the proficiency selection menu, with the last column working differently from the others. If they create a Knowledge Cleric, the expertise bonus will work differently than if it was a rogue. It's a source of confusion. This is why I think it's important to devote a few lines to explaining how it works and the difference between the two versions of expertise. I've been wondering for a while how to word it concisely. What is certain is that, for the second version of expertise at the moment, "no proficiency requirement" is more accurate than "providing both proficiency and expertise". Writing that we get both is easier and faster, but unfortunately, the fact that we can still choose to get proficiency in a skill with expertise (last time I checked) makes this statement false. If there is a patch that prevents selecting proficiency in a skill with expertise, and in the skill check interface with the dices, we see that, for example, the feat Actor also provide proficiency, then we should definitely use the wording that it provides both. Until then, I don't know, I let others be the judge ! For now, I'm not planning to edit more and I would rather let others do it. [[User:Sentinelle|Sentinelle]] 04:12, 29 October 2023 (CEST) | ||
I just saw your changes, it's great :) I couldn't have done better. [[User:Sentinelle|Sentinelle]] 04:21, 29 October 2023 (CEST) | |||
Revision as of 03:21, 29 October 2023
Proficiency article
Hi! Just wanted to let you know your reformulation was good, though I've been planning to finish up reformatting the rest of the proficiency article tonight (don't let that stop you from editing it though!), and I may end up rewording or removing that note entirely later (the original phrasing just relies too much on "more valuable", I think). Just thought I'd let you know, in case you object or want to re-add it if I do end up removing it. Though, I'll try to incorporate the additional information you added to the note elsewhere in the article, if I do remove it. Willowisp (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2023 (CEST)
I trust your judgment, do what you think is right! :) There are a significant number of players who like to min-max this kind of stuff and make characters good at everything, and months ago I was myself confused about this expertise thingy (largely because the user interface with human racial proficiency was bugged, to be fair). Beginners may struggle to understand why their human rogue has 3 columns in the proficiency selection menu, with the last column working differently from the others. If they create a Knowledge Cleric, the expertise bonus will work differently than if it was a rogue. It's a source of confusion. This is why I think it's important to devote a few lines to explaining how it works and the difference between the two versions of expertise. I've been wondering for a while how to word it concisely. What is certain is that, for the second version of expertise at the moment, "no proficiency requirement" is more accurate than "providing both proficiency and expertise". Writing that we get both is easier and faster, but unfortunately, the fact that we can still choose to get proficiency in a skill with expertise (last time I checked) makes this statement false. If there is a patch that prevents selecting proficiency in a skill with expertise, and in the skill check interface with the dices, we see that, for example, the feat Actor also provide proficiency, then we should definitely use the wording that it provides both. Until then, I don't know, I let others be the judge ! For now, I'm not planning to edit more and I would rather let others do it. Sentinelle 04:12, 29 October 2023 (CEST)
I just saw your changes, it's great :) I couldn't have done better. Sentinelle 04:21, 29 October 2023 (CEST)