D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[doctorbadwolf]

I doubt Morrus has access to much better search tools that we do. Could be wrong, but you could do the searches and tallying yourself if interested.

If he doesn't, his response to my post was...unhelpful, at best?
[MENTION=6788732]cbwjm[/MENTION] I agree. As for rangers, at one point I was posting in just...way too many Ranger threads.

 

[Hussar]

I notice we have a new class (Mystic) that encompasses numerous psionic archetypes... and yet we only have one thread for discussion of it. A thread where some posters are discussing the mechanics, some discussing the fluff, others are stating their dislike of it, and some are questioning whether psionics should be in the game at all... and yet we only have one thread on the front page about it. Just saying...

If you read that thread, other than a few posters saying they don't like it, there's nobody threadcrapping to tell everyone that Mystics are anathema to gaming or that WotC shouldn't waste its time or a that all psionic players are immature douchebags that only want to bully other people at the table.

IOW we get to discuss without all the meta crap from a group of posters who will try their damndest to make sure that everyone else follows their one true way of playing.

 

[Hussar]

It also works differently too. You see a single warlord thread saying something like "what do we nee to make a warlord " and it gets threadcrapped almost immediately. And two or three posters split off to post their versions of a warlord in new threads so not to get lost in the scrum. Then two or three threads spawn at the meta level, like this one, arguing that we shouldn't even be considering this topic at all.

It's easy to see why warlords spawn so many threads. Too much meta level conversation that makes actual discussion very difficult.

 

[cbwjm]

On the flipside, [MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION] has created a rough outline of a warlord but it's only had a handful of replies. The question for all the people that want a warlord is, why aren't they jumping in and offering up some feedback? Is it because it isn't an official wotc warlord because the way things are going, I'm not sure wotc are going to create an official warlord any time soon so homebrew or 3rd party options are all we have.

 

[Zardnaar]

On the flipside, [MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION] has created a rough outline of a warlord but it's only had a handful of replies. The question for all the people that want a warlord is, why aren't they jumping in and offering up some feedback? Is it because it isn't an official wotc warlord because the way things are going, I'm not sure wotc are going to create an official warlord any time soon so homebrew or 3rd party options are all we have.

Probably because trolling is more fun than actual work.

 

[cbwjm]

Probably because trolling is more fun than actual work.

For a lot of people I'd say trolling is more fun that work, but it isn't them who should be jumping in and commenting, it's the fans that want a warlord who should be in there offering feedback on your adaptation of the warlord. Instead they're in this thread complaining about people who complain about the warlord.

 

[Imaro]

If you read that thread, other than a few posters saying they don't like it, there's nobody threadcrapping to tell everyone that Mystics are anathema to gaming or that WotC shouldn't waste its time or a that all psionic players are immature douchebags that only want to bully other people at the table.

I've read the thread, now could you...

Please show me where anyone said warlords are "anathema to gaming"... or that warlord players are "immature douchbags that only want to bully other people at the table"... there's that hyperbole at work again and isn't the second a group attack and against the rules of EnWorld? WHat I have seen is people state they don't like the flavor of the warlord being a commander or leader, and I've seen plenty of complaints in the Mystic thread about names and flavor. Seen people claim psionics isn't fantasy enough in the mystic thread as for whether WotC should waste their time on psionics or not... well that boat sailed a while ago, didn't it?

IOW we get to discuss without all the meta crap from a group of posters who will try their damndest to make sure that everyone else follows their one true way of playing.

Your bias is clearly showing here. There is plenty of the same crap in the mystic thread and yet everyone who likes the mystic in that thread, for the most part, is ignoring those comments and commenting and discussing on what they like as opposed to creating multiple threads because... well I'm still unclear on how multiple threads solve the specific problem you seem to be speaking to here.

 

[Imaro]

It also works differently too. You see a single warlord thread saying something like "what do we nee to make a warlord " and it gets threadcrapped almost immediately. And two or three posters split off to post their versions of a warlord in new threads so not to get lost in the scrum. Then two or three threads spawn at the meta level, like this one, arguing that we shouldn't even be considering this topic at all.

It's easy to see why warlords spawn so many threads. Too much meta level conversation that makes actual discussion very difficult.

Eh, I find most, thought not all, of the actual homebrew threads or those working towards something concrete as far as the warlord is concerned to be surprisingly small in post count.

 

[Aldarc]

Eh, I find most, thought not all, of the actual homebrew threads or those working towards something concrete as far as the warlord is concerned to be surprisingly small in post count.

So which is it? Do you want us to keep the total number of Warlord threads down or do you want us to propagate more Warlord threads?

 

[Imaro]

So which is it? Do you want us to keep the total number of Warlord threads down or do you want us to propagate more Warlord threads?

If fans are going to create numerous instances of them, which I am against and which apparently they are going to do irregardless of what anyone else thinks they should do... better they serve a productive purpose... right? Or did you think in me being against a multitude of unnecessary threads you also thought I was advocating they be made even more useless?