Talk:Necromancer, 4th Variant (5e Class)

— This article did not become a featured article. Blobby383b (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2021 (MST)
Please feel free to re-nominate it once it meets the FA criteria and when all the major issues brought up in this nomination have been dealt with.

Oppose. While I certainly do have my reservations about variants, this isn’t what this is about.

• Combined with the wizard spell list and not-Arcane recovery, this is just a buffed Wizard. It has more and better features(namely some at spell slot levels), and provides no meaningful downsides.
• There’s several spells that just link to external sites.
• Some of the wording is very off, sometimes using “per day” or “level X”.

I don’t know how many of these were introduced by IP edits(as it seems to be a popular place for them), but regardless I can’t support this becoming something that shows up on the front page. This may be an old request but I may as well voice my thoughts. --SwankyPants (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2021 (MDT)

Oppose. Simply based on the fact that this class is still under heavy amounts of editing, it is not complete to be a nominee. The concept itself, I think, will need to be differentiated and improved upon compared to the Necromancer (5e Class). While this class is under construction, I recommend the FA nominee be taken off and the WIP tag be applied instead.--Yanied (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2021 (MDT)

Oppose. A decent class, but I do not believe that this is good enough to be a featured article. It has undergone a lot of edits, but it still needs a number of revisions fixing small issues here and there(mentions of wizard spell list, missing wikilinks, ect.). In addition, I believe this class lacks a core identify/feature. All official classes have something to key around at 1st/2nd level especially. In addition, this class is missing things like a custom spell list, questions about building a necromancer, subclass lore, ect.--Blobby383b (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2021 (MDT)