D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

Hussar · Mar 16, 2017

Imaro said:
So I'm talking about the warlord... just not what you feel I should be talking about when it comes to the warlord. And no I'm not discussing whether you should talk about the warlord. I'm discussing whether posters feel there is or isn't enough demand for the warlord to get an officially published version. I don't control the forums... nothing I do or say can stop people from discussing warlords... so there's nothing to discuss on that front.

Actually, you're specifically NOT talking about the warlord. You're talking about whether or not people want a warlord, which is a completely different topic. And, if you're right, and there isn't demand, then you have a nice talking point for shutting down further conversation. After all, if there's no demand, then there's no need for multiple threads talking about it right?

I don't see a citation for this supposed discussion between you and me that I didn't understand. If it was the last time we discussed something it shouldn't be too hard to provide a link... I mean it's exactly what you asked me for right? But I'll bet you just ignore this and never actually provide a link... lets' see.

EDIT: Unless you're talking about later in the conversation when the goalposts were changed and we were discussing a specific era of DL as opposed to a generic (any era )DL character... that wasn't a misunderstanding that was all of the information not being provided to begin with.

Moving goalposts? You were the only one who wasn't understanding the conversation. Everyone else was on board, whether or not they agreed. So, if everyone else understands the conversation and you don't...

Here's your example of hyperbole... emphasis mine. I've never said this, never argued for it and never said no discussion of the warlord whatsoever should take place. I've said the threads were excessive in number, they were cluttering up the forum but never said no one should be allowed to talk about warlords and all threads about warlords should go away... What's transparent is, like usual, you are creating a fake argument, assigning it to me and then arguing against it.

EDIT: I mean honestly man this feels like it's starting to get a little personal for you... bringing up old threads, assigning arguments and motivations that I've never expressed and arguing I don't have the right to post my opinion about whatever I want within the rules of ENworld...

So, what is "excessive"? Two threads? One? Should warlord fans only start a thread if no existing thread is on the first page of the forum? Where's the cut off?

IOW, what's the point of this thread if not to shut down conversation? If you are right, and there's no demand, then you can safely tell anyone starting a new thread that they are whistling in the dark and no one cares. You don't have to actually argue any of the points made. You've created a nice rhetorical position where no matter what's being argued, or how often, you can simply shut it down by claiming that no one cares.

And, what if you're wrong? What if there really is demand. After all, your own poll shows about 25% of respondents want an official warlord. That's a pretty damn big chunk of gamers right there. Which means that people should be starting threads to talk about the class. It's a very popular class.

But, in any case, since this thread isn't actually discussing anything to do with the class itself, it should get shelved the same way the other meta-thread was and put in Meta-Discussion.

Hussar · Mar 16, 2017

Imaro said:
I didn't say anything about the number of warlord posts (except in so far as the fact that we have multiple threads, many with only a few posts in them...which seems to support the fact that they weren't really necessary)... I talked about multiple threads. If there was one warlord thread with a thousand + posts... it wouldn't bother me at all... If there were 2 with 500 each it still wouldn't bother me but when we get to the point where the exact same thread (not just the idea or the topic but an exact copy of an already created warlord thread) is posted again with a different name...yeah IMO we've reached a point of clutter and low quality/quantity on return for said clutter.

So, how is this thread substantially different than this one:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-s-time-for-a-Warlord-Sub-Forum-Again-somehow

If your point is to discuss the number of threads, as it appears in the above quote, isn't that exactly what was being discussed in the linked thread?

------

Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.

My total bad. I just looked at the post dates and it seems that the linked thread was actually posted AFTER yours. By six hours apparently. So, within less than a day of each other, and less than a day after the first Warlord thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...warlord-needs-in-5e-and-how-to-make-it-happen - two threads were started to complain about warlord threads.

Hrm, let's look at the timeline shall we:

1st warlord thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...warlord-needs-in-5e-and-how-to-make-it-happen - Warlord class discussion
2nd warlord thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?528416-Different-types-of-Warlords - Discussing the history of the warlord
3rd warlord thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?528431-How-much-Warlord-do-you-want - discussing how much of a warlord is enough and obviously pretty tongue in cheek.
4th warlord thread: This one
5th warlord thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-s-time-for-a-Warlord-Sub-Forum-Again-somehow

Oh, but, it's complete hyperbole on my part that threadcrapping and whatnot makes discussion very difficult. Within about 24 hours of a warlord thread being posted, 3 of the subsequent threads are all meta level threads discussing whether or not we need to discuss warlords at all. The first asks how much of a warlord do we want - with the implication being that if the majority don't want a warlord at all, we don't need it. The second discusses how much of a warlord do we actually want in the game, apparently being a corollary of the first, asking how much demand is there for a warlord (this thread in fact) with the implication being that if there is no demand, then why are we talking about it and a third flat out complaining that there are too many warlord threads.

Is it really any wonder that warlord fans are a bit touchy? When you get two threads actually discussing warlords and then three threads telling us that we should just shut up already? I mean, in the first thread, it takes a whole SEVEN posts before someone threadcraps the thread and tells us that we should be satisfied by a multiclass bard. Heck, your first post in the thread (#38 by my count) talks about how over powered the idea of granting actions is. Yet, when we get a Mystic class that grants actions, I must have missed your criticism.

Is that enough citation for you [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]?

Eubani · Mar 16, 2017

Still waiting for Imaro to complain about the number of Mystic related threads, but that not happening of course would not have anything to do with any anti Warlord agenda after all he does not care about the class.....

Imaro · Mar 16, 2017

Hussar said:
So, how is this thread substantially different than this one:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-s-time-for-a-Warlord-Sub-Forum-Again-somehow

If your point is to discuss the number of threads, as it appears in the above quote, isn't that exactly what was being discussed in the linked thread?

GO read my OP... yes the thread has drifted like almost all threads do but this thread wasn't about whether there should be a sub forum for warlords... Can you find a single post of mine stating we should create a warlord subforum... I'll wait... but you won't find one.

Hussar said:
Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.

My total bad. I just looked at the post dates and it seems that the linked thread was actually posted AFTER yours. By six hours apparently. So, within less than a day of each other, and less than a day after the first Warlord thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...warlord-needs-in-5e-and-how-to-make-it-happen - two threads were started to complain about warlord threads.

Hrm, let's look at the timeline shall we:

1st warlord thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...warlord-needs-in-5e-and-how-to-make-it-happen - Warlord class discussion
2nd warlord thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?528416-Different-types-of-Warlords - Discussing the history of the warlord
3rd warlord thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?528431-How-much-Warlord-do-you-want - discussing how much of a warlord is enough and obviously pretty tongue in cheek.
4th warlord thread: This one
5th warlord thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-s-time-for-a-Warlord-Sub-Forum-Again-somehow

Oh, but, it's complete hyperbole on my part that threadcrapping and whatnot makes discussion very difficult. Within about 24 hours of a warlord thread being posted, 3 of the subsequent threads are all meta level threads discussing whether or not we need to discuss warlords at all. The first asks how much of a warlord do we want - with the implication being that if the majority don't want a warlord at all, we don't need it. The second discusses how much of a warlord do we actually want in the game, apparently being a corollary of the first, asking how much demand is there for a warlord (this thread in fact) with the implication being that if there is no demand, then why are we talking about it and a third flat out complaining that there are too many warlord threads.

You're assigning motivations to posters that you have no way of knowing... you've done this numerous times to me in this very thread. You've decided what my argument is... to make warlord fans shut up, to create a warlord subforum, etc.... when in fact I haven't stated I wanted or was driving at any of these things. That's the problem you're constructing false arguments for other posters and then arguing against the arguments you claim they are making and when asked to provide proof that I have stated or argued for any of these things... you've come up short. Nothing, nada to support your assertions which I'm starting to suspect are purposefully disingenuous. C'mon Hussar you're better than that.

Hussar said:
Is it really any wonder that warlord fans are a bit touchy? When you get two threads actually discussing warlords and then three threads telling us that we should just shut up already?

Here we go again... None of those threads do that, I don't see anyone telling warlord fans to "shut up"... again you are ascribing motivations to posters that aren't stated by them and you've yet to provide a post by me that supports anything you claim I'm posting about.

Hussar said:
I mean, in the first thread, it takes a whole SEVEN posts before someone threadcraps the thread and tells us that we should be satisfied by a multiclass bard. Heck, your first post in the thread (#38 by my count) talks about how over powered the idea of granting actions is. Yet, when we get a Mystic class that grants actions, I must have missed your criticism

.

There's no thread crap there, no snide remarks in that comment, no telling anyone to shut up. @Krachek stated what he felt made a warlord happen in 5e... nothing more and nothing less. And as I said earlier the same thing is happening with the Mystic, or are you claiming every post in the mystic thread is positive?

Later in the warlord thread I stated that I didn't think granting action for an action was a good idea unless they found a way to curtail the exponential power increase... is that what the mystic does? Because at a glance it seems he's limited by psi points and by the fact that it eats up the targets reaction (which means the best available action won't always be available if the target has already used their reaction for something else)... is that enough to bring it's power level in line, I have no idea but it's not the same as unlimited action for action trading... also why would I comment on it unless I have an idea. Now in all honestly I haven't commented on the Mystic for a few reasons...

1. I'm not playing 5e right now, I'm playing DCC rpg so I have no game to test it out in
2. It just came out this week... I work, haven't had time to read through it.

Hussar said:
Is that enough citation for you @Imaro?

Citation of what? You made specific claims about what I've posted and you didn't show a single example... instead you switched the argument to something totally different (which I knew you'd do) and went off on some other tangent... Show me where I've told warlord fans to shut up, or where I called for a sub-forum for warlords...

Imaro · Mar 16, 2017

Eubani said:
Still waiting for Imaro to complain about the number of Mystic related threads, but that not happening of course would not have anything to do with any anti Warlord agenda after all he does not care about the class.....

You keep waiting for that... The mystic has nowhere near the cyclic habit of cluttering up the forum that the warlord does...

Aldarc · Mar 16, 2017

Imaro said:
You keep waiting for that... The mystic has nowhere near the cyclic habit of cluttering up the forum that the warlord does...

Psionics, however, do or, rather, did. It wasn't until we got the first iteration of the Mystic as a class in UA that things habitually quieted down around psionics, precisely because people knew that there was at least something in the works, so they were appeased by the effort and content to wait and see.

Imaro · Mar 16, 2017

Aldarc said:
Psionics, however, do or, rather, did. It wasn't until we got the first iteration of the Mystic as a class in UA that things habitually quieted down around psionics, precisely because people knew that there was at least something in the works, so they were appeased by the effort and content to wait and see.

I love how Morrus has debunked the claims that other classes have cluttered up the forums in the same way the warlord threads did (have we ever needed a sub-forum for psionics, rangers, or any other class or are we now going to claim that the board mods and owner are biased against warlords as well and that's why the sub-forum was necessary?) and yet it's summarily ignored. Not sure what else to say.

Aldarc · Mar 16, 2017

Imaro said:
I love how Morrus has debunked the claims that other classes have cluttered up the forums in the same way the warlord threads did (have we ever needed a sub-forum for psionics, rangers, or any other class or are we now going to claim that the board mods and owner are biased against warlords as well and that's why the sub-forum was necessary?) and yet it's summarily ignored. Not sure what else to say.

Morrus said nothing of other classes except for rangers. And I seem to recall that part of the reason for the creation of the sub-forum was not just a matter of their number but also as a way to contain the vitriol of the discussion surrounding the Warlord. People don't have to defend the ranger's right to exist as a class.

Imaro · Mar 16, 2017

Aldarc said:
Morrus said nothing of other classes except for rangers. And I seem to recall that part of the reason for the creation of the sub-forum was not just a matter of their number but also as a way to contain the vitriol of the discussion surrounding the Warlord. People don't have to defend the ranger's right to exist as a class.

So are we going to go down the list of every class? Seriously? I think if there was a class that rivaled the warlord in thread count he would have mentioned it...

The fact that the number of threads for warlords could at one point fill its own subforum speaks volumes but ok, here we go again...

Hey @Morrus do you have any insight into whether the psionic class threads have been as prolific as the warlord threads before Mystics were announced?

Also, I'm sure a new class for comparison will arise once we get the answer for psionics...

Aldarc · Mar 16, 2017

Imaro said:
So are we going to go down the list of every class? Seriously?

The fact that the number of threads could fill a subforum speaks for itself but ok, here we go again...

Hey [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] do you have any insight into whether the psionic class threads have been as prolific as the warlord threads before Mystics were announced?

Also, I'm sure a new class for comparison will arise once we get the answer for psionics...

So this is what a productive discussion of the warlord looks like? So much for practicing what you preach.