D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

You are not wrong.

Be sensitive to the fact that not everyone is a good writer, and that this format (internet forums) is a tricky form of communication.

Miscommunication is common when everyone is *trying*. Willful miscommunication is also common, unfortunately. You can try to change the way people speak to you (what they imply), but it is far easier to change the way you read things (what you chose to infer).

I get your frustation with hyperbole, I do, but I tend to ignore it myself. YMMV.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[Hussar]

Umm a campaign is simply someone trying to organize people to get something done. Starting a thread calling for warlord threads to be put in their own forum is a start of a campaign.

No hyperbole.

And, since I'm getting a little tired of people throwing around words like "liar" all the time, let's take a look at the opening post of [MENTION=22953]SteelDragon[/MENTION]'s thread:

Seriously. Half the threads in the top ten of the 5e forum are all rehashing Warlords: yay/naye, how, why, what do they get....

Didn't we do all of this already last year?

He wasn't calling for homebrew threads to get their own dedicated forum. He was complaining that "half the threads in the top ten of the 5e forum" were all rehashing Warlords. Well, that's flat out untrue. It cannot possibly be true since, by the time he posted this thread, there were only 4 threads, which made this one the fifth one. Oh, look, hyperbole for effect. Hrmmm.

 

[steeldragons]

No one said, Senor Conflation, I was arguing for homebrew threads in that thread. Sorry, I said "half" (which would have been 5 out of 10) instead of "4"...if you say so, you were obviously paying more attention.

I brought up the homebrew sub-forum as an example of someone NOT minding having their preferred topic put into a separate, specific, forum...rather than <crying/screaming/whining/whatever your emotional motivation of choice> of victimization about being "banished to a ghetto."

I'll say again, choose your own blanks...tack on a "you" or an "off" or whatever else you like. But, do me a favor in future, and leave me the hell out of the massive warlord-shaped chip you insist on lugging around on your shoulder.

 

[Hussar]

No one said, Senor Conflation, I was arguing for homebrew threads in that thread. Sorry, I said "half" (which would have been 5 out of 10) instead of "4"...if you say so, you were obviously paying more attention.

I brought up the homebrew sub-forum as an example of someone NOT minding having their preferred topic put into a separate, specific, forum...rather than <crying/screaming/whining/whatever your emotional motivation of choice> of victimization about being "banished to a ghetto."

I'll say again, choose your own blanks...tack on a "you" or an "off" or whatever else you like. But, do me a favor in future, and leave me the hell out of the massive warlord-shaped chip you insist on lugging around on your shoulder.

Nothing in your post or your thread title has anything to do with a homebrew material. At that point in time, there weren't ANY actual homebrew warlord threads posted. It was still all hypothetical discussion. So, all we have is a thread complaining how we had done all this last year.

Funny how that morphs in your head to a reasoned call for a sub-forum to discuss a topic. Funny how this:

Originally Posted by steeldragons View Post
Seriously. Half the threads in the top ten of the 5e forum are all rehashing Warlords: yay/naye, how, why, what do they get....

Didn't we do all of this already last year?


Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?528592-5e-Warlord-Demand-Poll/page38#ixzz4bpUfKR36

is somehow not an attack on warlord fans but, a reasonable, rational response, but, me pointing out that it's a direct attack on anyone who wants to discuss the issue is me carrying a massive chip on my shoulder.

Again, as I said before, cue the wide eyed eyes of innocent hurt.

 

[Aldarc]

I wonder whether there would be higher or less demand if the name "warlord" (and all of its associated stigma) was not attached: i.e., whether there would be demand for a non-magical/martial tactical support class.

 

[steeldragons]

Nothing in your post or your thread title has anything to do with a homebrew material.

Oy. You do this on purpose, I guess? Deliberate misinterpretation of what is being said directly.

No. It wasn't "an attack on warlord fans." It was saying why are there 5 -excuse me, you claim there were 4- Warlord threads in the first 10 of the forum...pointing out that we did all of that last year...and in a speculative way -though not nearly as intensely- prior to 5e even coming out ...and, maybe, it would be prudent to give those 4 starting threads, now 7 or 10 or whatever they are, they're own lil' play space again.

I am sorry that you must be carrying around such butt-hurt that it seems this poll/thread, et al., are showing that the majority of 5e players don't really much care one way or another if they get a dedicated "warlord" class, and/or think the existing various options/avenues to get to that type of character (multiple types of that archetype of character) cover the bases, or flat out don't want one for whatever reasons.

I'm sorry you take that is a personal affront to your "fun" and personal "insult" of your preferred play or, as we used to say with action figures (pre-computers), "You took my favorite guy!" Or, however it is you internalize this for whatever the reason. Congrats! I no longer care.

I have enough obtuseness in the real world to put up with it in a forum about magic elvish make-believe. I'm sure I'll miss your measured reasoned pro-warlord stances that carry on for pages and your picking fights with anyone who doesn't want a warlord -just like the one you do- in their game.

Enjoy your stay at the 5-star Steeldragons' List o' Blocked Resort for a while.

 

[steeldragons]

PS: [MENTION=6793093]Jeff Albertson[/MENTION], if you want to quote someone it is customary to remove them from your blocked list, so they can read what is being quoted. All I see in my notifications is that you quoted me, but the message is "Hidden." As I do not have you on my Blocked list, I assume it is "hiding" from your end.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I wonder whether there would be higher or less demand if the name "warlord" (and all of its associated stigma) was not attached: i.e., whether there would be demand for a non-magical/martial tactical support class.

I think there would be a *little* more support for it.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[Tony Vargas]

No more dissection of the warrior archetype into smaller and smaller chunks.

Brief as it is, this is one of the better arguments against adding martial classes. (Really, it's been an issue ever since the Thief appeared in Greyhawk in 1975!)
Unfortunately, for it to work, the existing martial class, the Fighter would have to have been a great deal broader in it's capabilities. If the 5e fighter had been able to do everything the 3e & 4e fighter, and the 4e Warlord & Ranger, and the 3e Warblade and Knight, and the myriad official and un-official stabs at swashbucklers and the like that have been attempted over the years, sure, sub-dividing it (beyond sub-classes) would have been superfluous.

But, that's not the 5e fighter. The 5e fighter is a multi-attacking high-DPR machine, it doesn't have the design space or flexibility to do a lot more than that, sub-classes have minor side-lines, 1/3rd caster or the like, because that's all there's room for.

So, yes, additional martial classes like the Warlord are the only way to go to open up 5e to the full range of characters you could do with past editions (even if we limit ourselves to past edition 'core' or player handbooks). A single warrior-class capable enough to handle all that by itself would simply eclipse the fighter - and be decidedly complex, when there was a clear impetus to make the fighter simple.

 

[Corwin]

So, yes, additional martial classes like the Warlord are the only way to go to open up 5e to the full range of characters you could do with past editions (even if we limit ourselves to past edition 'core' or player handbooks).

This looks an awful lot like a petitio principii, or "begging the question", fallacy. Because many have argued that your desire is already achievable within the context of what a 5e character looks like and is capable of.