Talk:Ghost Rider (5e Class)

Class edited to balance unleash the demon and all resulting abilities from its use. Corrected for spelling, it’s psychic not physic. LOL. Please write in talk page if you are going to stub a class, your remarks would be valuable input in order to correct it.Azagoth (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2017 (MDT)

I don’t think you realize the number of articles that are stubbed without mention in a talk page. In addition, the stub had the remarks for what needed corrected...BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2017 (MDT)

As you have said not all classes stubbed have a talk page. This could be seen as a violation of the creative criticism requirement that is in the rules. With no suggestions of how to fix it how does one improve? Additionally, just stubbing an article for something that is a reasonably easy fix shouldn’t be done, rather just fix the perceived error with an explanation in talk page. Azagoth (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2017 (MDT)

Unleash the demon reference made in skill description, will not be adding archetypes as not all classes on wiki have them. There is no such thing as specific 5e wording except in mechanics and there is no violation. Stub removed.Azagoth (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2017 (MDT)

I've requested admin help as I think there's a bigger issue here. Please refer to Help:Precedent for things I've mentioned in my stubs. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2017 (MDT)

There are wording standards, like Help:When to Italicize and Capitalize. There are things which work with D&D and things which do not. For example You gain resistance to fire damage of all kinds. should be Using this form grants you fire resistance.. Also, saying that you can do something just because another page does, is a fallacy. We measure pages against the content gap from the preloads. Don't get angry, please, we want this to be a learing process for everyone involved. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2017 (MDT)

This class does not need archetypes and I will keep removing the stub for that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordDVanity (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Whether you think it does or not isn't the issue. There's a standard by Wotc and when other people visit this page, and see *unfinished work* (being polite here) like this, it hurts the credibility of D&Dwiki. Some people try to do good work here and to be thrown to wolves because rogue users want to do what they think is enough, and that isn't right.
Why doesn't the class need archetypes? What reasons are there that THIS class be special and unnecessary of following class design guidelines? BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2017 (MDT)

If the class wasn't built with archetypes in mind, {{Design Disclaimer}} or {{Design Note}} would probably be appropriate, as that would communicate that the lack of archetypes is intentional and not a sign of an unfinished page. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 10:32, 16 October 2017 (MDT)

Using {{Design Disclaimer}}, this class could allow players to choose an archetype from another class. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2017 (MDT)

Seems like a fair enough solution for now. Still frustrating that it shall remain an example of "how awful d&dwiki and everything on that site is broken & OP" but you cannot win them all. Thanks for helping out guys. I hope others are happy with the "solution" as well and we can all focus on editing other pages. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2017 (MDT)

As instructed by Administrator, wording has been changed along with specific references to spells to reflect abilities. Admin stub placed to request further admin assistance after making corrections. Any further input would be greatly appreciated. Azagoth (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2017 (MDT)

If you don't want non-admin help, I suggest putting things on your page. Every page is subject to changes via wiki users (I learned slightly the hard way as well). With that, I see that Azagoth did a really good review and changed a lot of things with the class. The biggest issue to me was Unleash the Demon's extra blade damage. At level 20, the weapon would deal 10d6+plus weapon damage+abilty modifier x2 because the extra attack. I finally fixed it sense one of you decided to actually take time to look over the class and put in real effort. Thank you. Editing classes isn't always easy, and working with others is "yuge". I think a few other things could be fine tooth combed but the glaring issues have been resolved. *still no archetypes :( BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2017 (MDT)

How is the primary weapon defined? This shows up in a few features.

Using 1 foot does not really fit with battle squares.

Passive abilities should state this.

Summon hellfire horse and penance stare do not state how they are used, and the later basically grants unlimited uses of power word kill.

+60 feet with a mount that cannot die does not really work.

The major problem with this class is that everything only works with unleash the demon, which is a high-powered ability. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2017 (MDT)

Corrections have been made based on your suggestions, except for the one foot as that has precedent from the arcane archer’s grasping Shot as mentioned in unearthed arcana, and is useful for all situations whether they be just story driven or miniature driven. As for everything being based off of one ability, it works kind of like a barbarian’s rage does. Effectively they are just another fighter without it, but when they “rage” or “Unleash the Demon” then they become something exceptional.Azagoth (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2017 (MDT)

I just want to restate that classes don't necessarily have to have archetypes. It's generally expected, but there isn't a rule saying that it's required – though if you explicitly make the decision to not include archetypes, that should probably be communicated through a design note. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 23:11, 17 October 2017 (MDT)

Thank you for restating the point. A design note has been included at this point to avoid further confusion. Azagoth (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2017 (MDT)