D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[Yunru]

No I'm pointing out that you don't determine how much word count I want to spend on any discussion on these boards...

Oh I see, so when you directly called me the "Arbitrator of Wordcount" or somesuch, you weren't accussing me of... arbitrating word count?

 

[FrogReaver]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] [MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION]

Ya'll are doing a poor job of reenacting all those tough guy new to prison scenes...

 

[Imaro]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] [MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION]

Ya'll are doing a poor job of reenacting all those tough guy new to prison scenes...

You're right... going to step away for a minute...

 

[Yunru]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] [MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION]

Ya'll are doing a poor job of reenacting all those tough guy new to prison scenes...

Top bunk's mine.

 

[Hussar]

/snip but at the end of the day if the demand for a warlord isn't there why should WotC waste resources producing it?

/snip Instead for quite a few it seems more a rallying cry for edition warring without breaking the forum rules... than any real aim at something productive.

So why are they cluttering up this forum... /snip

I'm not seeing why it's being discussed here if it's an official version that is wanted, no one on these boards can do that so we get into endless arguments around... what exactly? The majority don't care or are happy with the WotC offerings so for the majority of us it's irritating clutter at best... /snip

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], whether your intend it or not, there's been a pretty strong undercurrent here in your posts that make it look like you're intending this to limit discussion on Warlords. It's not hyperbole on my part, and it may simply be the nature of the medium where nuance is very hard to read. But, considering multiple posters in this thread have said the same thing to you, perhaps the issue is simply one of clarity.

Look, I get it. I get way too carried away when I start getting on a roll and it's easy to get caught up in trying to make your point. In my head, my points are all perfectly clear and well supported and make perfect logical sense. Obviously when they get released into the wild, meaning gets a whole lot blurrier.

AFAIC, there reason we aren't seeing any forward motion on a warlord isn't based on popularity. It's based on WotC's unwillingness to rock the boat.

----

Oh, by the way [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], you asked for citations when I talked about Warlords being one of the most popular characters on the CB. I'm sorry, I can't. All the 4e era blog and articles on the WotC site have been taken down. Again, more evidence of how far WotC is willing to go to bury any sort of talking points that people can use for edition warring, in either direction. WotC is going all out on trying to unify the fanbase and succeeding spectacularly. Expecting them to change direction on that is seems unlikely.

 

[MoonSong]

Eh... I'm not really a good person to discuss the block feature with, considering I think the forum would actually benefit from it being entirely removed - the no one can, intentionally or otherwise, use it as a means to hide their uncouth or inappropriate behavior, no one can turn the forum into an echo chamber by blocking anyone with differing opinions on no grounds other than that their opinion differs, and there is no way in which someone ends up responding to a post that breaks the forum rules by way of "Eh, I'll just hit block, that's easier for me than actually reporting the post like I'm supposed to" and thus creates the (hopefully) false appearance that the rules here don't actually mean anything because they aren't being enforced.

Or maybe I'm just sensitive to the fact that I get less of what I come to the forum for (that being exposure to other people's ideas about D&D, and discussion of those ideas to the benefit of me/them/anybody/everybody) any time someone decides they'd rather not read what I have to say and that just not reading my posts is too much effort for them.

Sorry for necroing this part of the discussion, but I mostly agree. I used to use the block function a lot, during times of need. Like that one time when something came up on en5ider that was quite disturbing and demeaning to me, but it was mostly a "feel good" thing, I would block people then unblock them days if not hours later, once I felt better and more capable of handling that. But it was so simple a gesture that no harm was done. Nowadays the feature is not that good, you disrupt the forum for yourself and others, and it doesn't work between phone and laptop. So when something upsets me I just stop coming to Enworld altogether for days if not weeks.

Sorry if this may ramble a bit, but seeing as everyone is so insistent on promoting their own opinion, here’s mine.

I came back to tabletop roleplaying 5 years ago, and became part of games which mainly used older rulesets (2E, C&C) or fast paced systems which lean towards more time spent storytelling, investigating and roleplaying (FATE, CofC). This is because I like a game to move along at a decent pace and not get bogged down in mechanics. As a DM I detest reading through page after page of dry rules which attempt to codify all possible outcomes. The ‘rulings over rules’ mindset is necessary for me to enjoy running a game.

As a player I like fellow players to be invested in the personalities of their characters, I prefer the focus of the game to be on exploration and interaction, and I need combat to be relatively short and sweet. I cannot abide theorycrafting and hate to see a character planned out mechanically many sessions in advance. I have a similar dislike for combat becoming a game of chess, with players pondering over moves on a gridded board, or an exercise in bookkeeping, with the DM having to keep track of umpteen conditions and modifiers.

Core 5E mostly hits the sweet spot, at least it does for levels 1-10 – sure there are a few bits I’m not too keen on – the speed with which unconscious characters can be up and fighting again, fast levelling, full hitpoints after a single night’s rest, but I can tweak that easily WITHOUT breaking the game. The game allows, nay encourages that minor tweaking.

I’m strict on races and classes being those published in hardback form by WotC, and I disallow multiclassing for purely mechanical reasons – but even with those limitations, in the 5 campaigns in which I have participated/DMed, I’ve yet to see a class/race/archetype combination repeated even once. There are plenty of options there. My ‘by the book’ strictness there may to some, make me look like a harsh DM who prevents players from having any control over their characters. That is not the case, I’m open to reworking and reflavouring, as long as the story, the background, and the personality are the focus. I’ll let someone multiclass if it fits the personality, background and style of play of the character. And during actual play I’m very much a ‘yes’ DM – the simplicity of the game system allows me to be. Saying ‘yes’ during play drives the story and encourages the players to think creatively.

People are talking about a major mechanical crunch expansion. I don’t want it. I don’t want to have to learn the new rules, I don’t want any form of shift away from ‘rulings over rules’, and most importantly I want to continue to be a ‘yes’ DM, and be able to work mostly on the fly. More crunch almost invariably means more combat options, which in turn means the game slows down. I can’t bear the thought of that. More classes mean more ammunition for the theorycrafters, the number crunchers who turn me off gaming, greater opportunity for them to find some loophole to boost their (usually) adversarial style of play.

For me the Warlord class typifies an era when D&D ‘went tactical’, the game board was expected, the focus had moved from the minds of the group, onto a grid and a list of powers. It represents a specific style of gaming that I am glad 5E broke away from. I’m not keen on the Battlemaster archetype for exactly the same reason. But I do try to stick to my ‘pick anything from the WotC hardbacks’ mantra, so I’m not going to remove it – though I may just stick to running lower level games so that the number of tactical options the class has is more limited.

If WotC releases too much crunch in hardback form though, the mantra would have to change. And I’m old and crusty, and therefore resistant (half damage) to change attacks.

Sorry you feel that way. But try to get it from a different point of view. For example, I like clerics and bards, a lot. Over time, however, they can get a bit stale. Personality and character-wise they are different everytime, if a little samey because I'm drawn to certain personalities, but I keep doing the same stuff over and over, just doing exactly the same things with little variation eventually gets old. So having another support class -like the warlord- is nice. And while unofficial, the lazylord allowed me to play characters that wouldn't be viable otherwise. Being the commoner surrounded by heroes is a compelling fantasy.

And, frankly, they have no need to do so. There's still a mountain of earlier edition material to mine for ideas and concepts. No one gives a damn if they produce a Favored Soul or a Kensai. No one gets "insulted" by adding a Lore Wizard. People just don't have any really strong feelings on the issue.

Actually I have strong feelings against the Lore wizard. I know you wanted to throw examples at random, but the Lore wizard is particularly insulting and I'd bet the most controversial archetype out of the UA.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
Actually I have strong feelings against the Lore wizard. I know you wanted to throw examples at random, but the Lore wizard is particularly insulting and I'd bet the most controversial archetype out of the UA.

Mind if I ask why? I know you're looking forward to a particular sorcerer concept, but, what's the issue with the Lore wizard?

 

[Eubani]

Mind if I ask why? I know you're looking forward to a particular sorcerer concept, but, what's the issue with the Lore wizard?

It does what the Sorcerer is suppose to do but better + more spells + greater variety of spells + expertise on lore skills.

 

[Aldarc]

Oh, by the way [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], you asked for citations when I talked about Warlords being one of the most popular characters on the CB. I'm sorry, I can't. All the 4e era blog and articles on the WotC site have been taken down. Again, more evidence of how far WotC is willing to go to bury any sort of talking points that people can use for edition warring, in either direction. WotC is going all out on trying to unify the fanbase and succeeding spectacularly. Expecting them to change direction on that is seems unlikely.

I tried looking as well to no avail. Same problem.

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro, whether your intend it or not, there's been a pretty strong undercurrent here in your posts that make it look like you're intending this to limit discussion on Warlords. It's not hyperbole on my part, and it may simply be the nature of the medium where nuance is very hard to read. But, considering multiple posters in this thread have said the same thing to you, perhaps the issue is simply one of clarity.

Look, I get it. I get way too carried away when I start getting on a roll and it's easy to get caught up in trying to make your point. In my head, my points are all perfectly clear and well supported and make perfect logical sense. Obviously when they get released into the wild, meaning gets a whole lot blurrier.

Fair enough but IMO you and a few posters are being a little hypocritical. I have created this one thread, where anyone has been able to voice their opinion pro, against or neutral in so far as the warlord is concerned... as well as vote on the poll and I'm told I am trying to shut down conversation about the warlord... really? With 20+ pages of discussion it doesn't seem that way tome, it moreso feels that you all want to regulate the type of discussion that gets to take place... and no I don't agree with that.

On the other hand the forums were flooded with numerous threads about the warlord (the vast majority pro) and none of you are telling them... hey guys this might be excessive, you are kind of cluttering up the forum with multiple threads that could be consolidated into 1 or maybe 2 threads and pushing topics others might find interesting to the bottom or even off the front page with very little being accomplished in each individual thread... That's where I see a double standard... I'm supposedly trying to shut conversation down (when really whether or not the warlord is a popular class has no bearing on whether people can or should homebrew a class, or continue to demand WotC make an official one, it only hints at perhaps why it hasn't been made at this point)... but flooding the forum with redundant threads... that's A-OK...