Forum:Talent abilities

Forums: Village pump → Talent abilities
(This topic is archived. Please do not edit this page!)

I think we need to come up new nomenclature. Now that talents have been decoupled from specialization, we have two sets of 'optional' abilities in addition to the core abilities (calling them trainable abilities has also become something of a misnomer).GolanTrevize (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

How about "Specialization abilities" and "Talented abilities"? --g0urra[T҂C] 09:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think just "Talents" and "Abilities" will suffice, for a category tree that goes something like this:

• <class> Abilities (e.g. Category:Druid abilities, containing all the "core" Druid abilities)
  • <class> Talents (e.g. Category:Druid talents, containing all the Druid talents)
  • <specialization 1> <class> Abilities (e.g. Category:Balance druid abilities, containing all specialization-specific abilities available to Balance druids)
  • <specialization 2> <class> Abilities (e.g. Category:Feral druid abilities, containing all specialization-specific abilities available to Feral druids)
  • <specialization 3> <class> Abilities (e.g. Category:Restoration druid abilities, containing all specialization-specific abilities available to Balance druids)

This does blur the active/passive line somewhat, but perhaps that distinction is not as interesting, or could be done in parallel. — foxlit (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The scenario was for "<class> abilities" pages. --g0urra[T҂C] 21:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be divided into "General abilities", "Specialization abilities" and "Talented abilities". --g0urra[T҂C] 21:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Could we do something so that the links for passive abilities (general,spec and talent) show up a different color from the actives? The way pre-MoP passive talents are now?GolanTrevize (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

While it's not impossible, it does deviate from the way the in-game links are colored. Is the passive/active ability distinction worth highlighting in a potentially unfamiliar way? — foxlit (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. On balance, I agree that it isn't worth the potential confusion.GolanTrevize (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)