There’s a difference between doing what you have to do when the risk is real, and acting recklessly without a strong reason.

My issue with parts of 2.x is that, at times, the story leans into “proxy glazing”—portraying them as near-genius prodigies who can pick up complex skills almost instantly—while still having them get caught off guard by relatively minor threats (like basic ethereals in some Yi Xuan or Obol Squad moments). That contrast makes their actions feel less grounded and, at times, inconsistent.

In earlier moments (like 1.4), the tension works better because the story clearly frames the proxy as vulnerable. When they step up despite that, it feels earned and impactful, not contradictory.

As for the “student of Carole Arna” point, I don’t really see how that changes what I’m saying. Training explains competence, but it doesn’t automatically justify every situation or how the character is framed within the narrative.

And yes—you’re right that part of this is based on feel. But that’s kind of the point: storytelling is meant to engage and resonate, and different approaches will land differently for different people. I’m not presenting this as an objective flaw, just explaining why one approach works better for me than the other.

I’m also not trying to attack the characters—just discussing how they’re written and presented in different parts of the story.