D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[steeldragons]

Dude, I'm totally sorry. I got your user name mixed up with [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION]. Totally my bad.

I'd hardly call a single thread wishing to not have a dozen warlord threads all cross-talking at odds cloggin up the 5e discussion board a "campaign to banish the warlord."

But I appreciate the amount of clout you seem to think I possess around here. Fear me. FEEEEAAARRRR MEEEEEE!!!! BOOWAHAHAHAHA!

I am also not aware that having one's own subforum specifically designed to discuss exactly and only what you want to talk about a "banishment" to a "ghetto."

I'd be THRILLED to have Homebrews/design threads divorced from the General 5e forum again...in which, incidentally, I'm pretty sure there was a 5e warlord designed... by moi.

So, in closing, Hussar...you can fill in some blanks.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Nit pick: saying someone is on a crusade doesn't imply that they have clout.

 

[Hussar]

I'd hardly call a single thread wishing to not have a dozen warlord threads all cross-talking at odds cloggin up the 5e discussion board a "campaign to banish the warlord."

But I appreciate the amount of clout you seem to think I possess around here. Fear me. FEEEEAAARRRR MEEEEEE!!!! BOOWAHAHAHAHA!

I am also not aware that having one's own subforum specifically designed to discuss exactly and only what you want to talk about a "banishment" to a "ghetto."

I'd be THRILLED to have Homebrews/design threads divorced from the General 5e forum again...in which, incidentally, I'm pretty sure there was a 5e warlord designed... by moi.

So, in closing, Hussar...you can fill in some blanks.

Not sure what blanks you think need filling in?

The argument, as far as I can tell, is that we get threads like yours because people are cluttering up the forums with warlord threads. I pointed out that at the point where you had created your thread to say that we need to push warlord discussion into a sub forum, we had exactly 5 warlord threads - 2 actually directly discussing warlords and three complaining that we were discussing warlords.

IOW, there aren't a proliferation of threads. There are a couple of threads and then a proliferation of meta-level threads talking about whether or not we should actually be talking about warlords at all. Now, subsequently, we have a number of other warlord threads, that's true. But, Imaro's list is actually out of chronological order, so, it's rather difficult to parse. You can list threads in order of original post date, which is how I could construct the actual timeline.

And, you can't really have it both ways. You can't, on one hand, tell me that WotC shouldn't waste it's time making a warlord and I should be happy with a home-brew version of a warlord, and then turn around and bitch about the fact that multiple home-brew versions are being talked about. If you (the general you, not you specifically) want warlord fans to be happy with home-brew, then, well, suck it up. We're going to have to actually take a look at a number of versions and compare and contrast and find ones that we personally like.

Since there is no unifying baseline version, them's the breaks.

 

[JonnyP71]

I'd be THRILLED to have Homebrews/design threads divorced from the General 5e forum again....

Yes yes yes please this!

 

[steeldragons]

Nit pick: saying someone is on a crusade doesn't imply that they have clout.

The implication of "clout" was more from the idea that because I posted a single thread -which I don't think I even posted in beyond the original post, whilst Hussar et al. threw themselves into fits over topics no one was challenging or even bringing up- that I am somehow an actual "threat" worthy of mention or "calling out" over some perceived "campaign to banish [the conversations of warlord] to a ghetto"... If I could do that with one thread, the implication seems fairly evident, I MUST have some serious clout ...which, again, in case that implication is unclear to some readers, I do not.

 

[steeldragons]

Not sure what blanks you think need filling in?

Just keeping it "Russel's grandma friendly."

 

[Sacrosanct]

Nit pick: saying someone is on a crusade doesn't imply that they have clout.

uh, yes it does. the definition of crusade to to lead or take part in an organized and energetic campaign against something. since it was called his crusade, then it infers he has the clout to organize and lead others, because clout is defined as having influence over others. So by the definitions, clout is required to lead a crusade.

Then again, in my humble opinion, if people would stop with the ridiculous extreme level of hyperbole (since posting a thread is hardly a crusade), we wouldn't even need to have this discussion.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

uh, yes it does. the definition of crusade to to lead or take part in an organized and energetic campaign against something. since it was called his crusade, then it infers he has the clout to organize and lead others, because clout is defined as having influence over others. So by the definitions, clout is required to lead a crusade.

Then again, in my humble opinion, if people would stop with the ridiculous extreme level of hyperbole (since posting a thread is hardly a crusade), we wouldn't even need to have this discussion.

We could also move along if people would recognise hyperbole as what it is - exaggeration for effect - and not bother freaking out (hyperbole right there!) when people use it.

But I'm not even involved in this discussion - so carry on.



Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[Sacrosanct]

We could also move along if people would recognise hyperbole as what it is - exaggeration for effect - and not bother freaking out (hyperbole right there!) when people use it.

But I'm not even involved in this discussion - so carry on.



Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see value in using rhetoric at such a level that it's an outright lie of what the other person is doing. At best, it's disingenuous, and I fail to see how that is conducive to conversation. I also tend to be of the belief that if you can't make a point without extreme exaggeration, then maybe you need to re-evaluate your position. Again, maybe just me...

Hyperbole is like fine spice--it has value if used sparingly and in the right context. When dumped on everything you eat, it's pretty bad.

 

[steeldragons]

But I'm not even involved in this discussion - so carry on.

Neither was I.