D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

It's really hard to play when the goal posts keep moving.

 

[Imaro]

It's really hard to play when the goal posts keep moving.

You quoted an observation I made... Want to explain what movement of goalposts is taking place?

EDIT: Or did you think I can't both believe the number of threads are excessive and find their actual quality and number of posts lacking

 

[Satyrn]

It's really hard to play when the goal posts keep moving.

Just imagine how much cooler hockey would be if play continued after the net was knocked out of position!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Just imagine how much cooler hockey would be if play continued after the net was knocked out of position!

Lol that would be entertaining for he spectator, certainly!

 

[mellored]

EDIT: Or did you think I can't both believe the number of threads are excessive and find their actual quality and number of posts lacking

You do realize your a contributer to the number of warlord threads and a big contributer to the number of non-warlord posts in those threads?

As for ideas, there's plenty enough to make a mystic style fighting class. Where there's just a bunch of maneuvers to choose from, likely with lower level ones leading to higher level ones.

I.e. you can choose grappler, allowing you to grapple as a bonus action. Then you can advance it to let you drag people without being slowed, and another that let’s you grapple larger creatures.

 

[Imaro]

You do realize your a contributer to the number of warlord threads and a big contributer to the number of non-warlord posts in those threads?

What non-warlord posts... or do you mean non pro-warlord posts?

 

[Hussar]

Well, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], there is, as evidence, every single one of your posts, including the original post, in this thread. It's not actually discussing anything about the warlord itself, but, discussing whether or not we should even be discussing the warlord in the first place.

As far as hyperbole goes, good grief, seriously? Cite or it didn't happen? Gimme a break. Then again, considering the last time we had a "discussion" that went on for a while, it turned out that you completely misunderstood the entire discussion because you couldn't bother to actually read the discussion, so, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. Really, this sort of thread shares a lot of similarities to the whole canon "discussion". It's an rhetorical strategy to be able to shut down the other side of a discussion without actually having to bother coming up with any sort of argument against the other side. Instead of "Well, change is bad, you're changing things, therefore it's bad, unless I happen to like the change, in which case, it's not really change and it's good" it's, "Well, no one actually wants what you think you want, so, why don't you stop asking?"

In both cases, you're not actually engaging with the arguments for or against something, but, taking it to a higher altitude level where there is nothing but circumstance and speculation to create an unassailable position. You're apparently not "against" warlords, but, you just want all the warlord threads to go away so. It's pretty transparent what's going on here. There's quite obviously an agenda.

 

[Imaro]

Well, @Imaro, there is, as evidence, every single one of your posts, including the original post, in this thread. It's not actually discussing anything about the warlord itself, but, discussing whether or not we should even be discussing the warlord in the first place.

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.

As far as hyperbole goes, good grief, seriously? Cite or it didn't happen? Gimme a break. Then again, considering the last time we had a "discussion" that went on for a while, it turned out that you completely misunderstood the entire discussion because you couldn't bother to actually read the discussion, so, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. Really, this sort of thread shares a lot of similarities to the whole canon "discussion". It's an rhetorical strategy to be able to shut down the other side of a discussion without actually having to bother coming up with any sort of argument against the other side. Instead of "Well, change is bad, you're changing things, therefore it's bad, unless I happen to like the change, in which case, it's not really change and it's good" it's, "Well, no one actually wants what you think you want, so, why don't you stop asking?"

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.

In both cases, you're not actually engaging with the arguments for or against something, but, taking it to a higher altitude level where there is nothing but circumstance and speculation to create an unassailable position. You're apparently not "against" warlords, but, you just want all the warlord threads to go away.

so. It's pretty transparent what's going on here. There's quite obviously an agenda.

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...

 

[Eubani]

Quite a few threads about Mystics popping up but no complaints in sight about the number of them or asking for no further.......well I suppose if I was the paranoid type I would put that down to a lack of anti Mystic agenda just saying!

 

[tuxgeo]

Quite a few threads about Mystics popping up but no complaints in sight about the number of them or asking for no further.......well I suppose if I was the paranoid type I would put that down to a lack of anti Mystic agenda just saying!

IMHO, that's not paranoia: there's a lack of any anti-Mystic agenda so far because not enough time has passed -- the people who might be irritated by a Mystic class haven't yet seen enough repetitive Mystic posts and threads to bore them to tears; or beyond that, to irritate them into a rage that is sufficiently furious for them to develop the desire to wall off all Mystic threads into a subforum ghetto.

Again, this is all IMHO. YMMV. HAND.