The PR #380 has me notice that we still have some naming inconsistencies.

I believe that we settled the debate about containing "Choose: " and that we should remove it because the real SRD name doesn't contain that.

However if we keep this, I wonder why we still keep "Expertise 1" for bards, for instance, instead of "Expertise". To me, we should be as close as possible to the SRD, and nowhere does the SRD mention the "Expertise 1" or "Metamagic, First and Second": only "Expertise" (SRD, pp. 13, 39) and "Metamagic" (SRD, p. 44) are mentioned, and if you look at the class tables, it's the same: only the short name is ever written.

So I believe that we should check the SRD and keep names as close as possible to it.

But the question will rise about the indices: they also still contain the "-choose-" part and this part should be replaced by a single "-". Given that index are kind of elements of a URL, I understand they should be unique, and I believe that we should keep them as unique as possible. And here, I'm inclined to use the 1 and 2 because it just makes sense because it needs to be unique.

And for the index, I suggest actually the following format:

[ <class name> - ] feature [ - <feature unique number> ]

Where [ <class name> - ] is optional and must be added only when a feature name exist in two different classes (even if they're different just like bard's expertise doesn't include thieves tools while rogue's expertise does include it), and [ - <feature unique number> ] is an increasing number starting from 1 when a feature for a same class is given at various levels, no matter the quantity of options given each level.

So my suggestion is to have the following example:

There are others, but those examples cover all cases, I guess.

What are your thoughts?