User talk:DanielDraco/WotC failures

What is wrong with the bard? Why are rangers not on this list? --Franken Kesey 00:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is only one bard song you ever use, and, while effective, it's thoroughly uninteresting. Once you activate that, you start casting spells, and then you're just a gimpy spellcaster -- the bardic flavor is lost. As for the ranger...well, the list is incomplete. I may or may not go back to compiling this. --DanielDraco 00:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Failures... how?
Do you mean in that they can't hold their own? (Not rogue level :-P) That they're too powerful? (Over rogue level :-P) Uninteresting to play? Don't embody a concept well? Are too general? Are too specific? In what way are failures failures? --Ghostwheel 02:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If it's in any way badly made. So yes, all of those would be good reasons for something to go on this list. Except maybe those last too -- I personally consider it perfectly valid to make a base class as general or as specific as you want. --DanielDraco 19:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Come on IRC sometime? --Ghostwheel 02:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So that basically marks out 90% of classes and PrCs, including almost all spellcasters? The only ones that actually make the cut IMO would include warmage, most psionic classes, ToB classes (<3), and some rogue PrCs? (The base rogue has a lot of problems--you can see my take on a rogue-level (if uninteresting one, since it doesn't have any resource management,) here.) I did fixes for the soulknife and a few other classes as well, and fixed a few of the other classes with feats like this. --Ghostwheel 07:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)