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)