D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[hejtmane]

I never played 4e so take that my view of warlord classes are from MMO and between battle master and feats you can make one all ready

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't think any other class has ever generated so many threads at once so no wonder people have never complained about them. At one point there were so many that they ended up being cordoned off in their own subforum. If too many more show up, I could see it happening again. I actually found it quite handy, kept all the warlord threads together making it easier to keep up with them.

I'd argue that the ranger threads were just as numerous, if not more. Definitely more numerous than warlord threads are right now. By far.

 

[Morrus]

I'd argue that the ranger threads were just as numerous, if not more. Definitely more numerous than warlord threads are right now. By far.

You'd be wrong.

 

[cbwjm]

I'd argue that the ranger threads were just as numerous, if not more. Definitely more numerous than warlord threads are right now. By far.

I've never really felt that, there have definitely been plenty of ranger and sorcerer threads but they never seem to really hit in a large cluster like the warlord threads.

 

[Imaro]

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...

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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...

There are two, now... but that doesn't stop your point from being made.

 

[tuxgeo]

It could be that some EN Worlders simply haven't read the whole UA document yet, so they don't feel comfortable about discussing it in their current state of unread-iness.

. . . not that this detracts from the point about the number of threads, though; but that situation might change in a couple of weeks as more people wade through the UA document.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You'd be wrong.

There aren't even that many warlord threads right now.

You have the numbers, how many warlord threads are there that have new posts from the last week, and how many active ranger threads were there when they spiked before the revised ranger came out?

 

[LordEntrails]

There aren't even that many warlord threads right now.

You have the numbers, how many warlord threads are there that have new posts from the last week, and how many active ranger threads were there when they spiked before the revised ranger came out?

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.

 

[cbwjm]

I think that there was that initial flurry with a week or two of active warlord threads then, like all threads eventually, some of them died down and people stopped posting in them. I think it is mainly this thread and maybe 1 or 2 other warlord threads that are still seeing posts.