D&D 5E (2014) 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[mellored]

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

So it's about that specific lore wizard, not the idea of a lore wizard?

 

[Yunru]

So it's about that specific lore wizard, not the idea of a lore wizard?

Pretty much, for me at least. It's not even that specific lore wizard per say, just the infringment on Sorcerer territory.

 

[Hussar]

The reason for the flood though is, unlike virtually any other issue, we wind up having to spend at least half the time trying to justify just wanting something.

This thread as case in point. This isn't even discussing warlords as such. It's discussing whether or not it's even productive to bother starting the conversation.

You'd see a lot less threads if every thread didn't get derailed into a morass of people trying to tell other people they're wrong for wanting something.

 

[Eubani]

As I said earlier there is nothing wrong about multiple threads on a class as multiple different topics exist within any class not taking purposeful derailment into account. Those who complained about multiple Warlord threads never complained about multiple threads about other classes hence I can honestly say that I have every reason to believe they have an agenda and that agenda appears to be to shutdown Warlord discussion. Guess what snowflakes it is not going to happen.

 

[cbwjm]

As I said earlier there is nothing wrong about multiple threads on a class as multiple different topics exist within any class not taking purposeful derailment into account. Those who complained about multiple Warlord threads never complained about multiple threads about other classes hence I can honestly say that I have every reason to believe they have an agenda and that agenda appears to be to shutdown Warlord discussion. Guess what snowflakes it is not going to happen.

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.

 

[JonnyP71]

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.

..or ignore them...

 

[Imaro]

The reason for the flood though is, unlike virtually any other issue, we wind up having to spend at least half the time trying to justify just wanting something.

That should increase thread length but I fail to see how it would increase the number of individual threads around a particular subject...

This thread as case in point. This isn't even discussing warlords as such. It's discussing whether or not it's even productive to bother starting the conversation.

The conversation has already been started over... and over... and over... and over again. This thread was created to see if perhaps there was some correlation between the absence of an official warlord class and the demand for one. Maybe you should read the OP.

You'd see a lot less threads if every thread didn't get derailed into a morass of people trying to tell other people they're wrong for wanting something.

I don't follow... so when someone shows up in a thread and posts a dissenting view, the answer is... to create more threads about the subject??

 

[Imaro]

As I said earlier there is nothing wrong about multiple threads on a class as multiple different topics exist within any class not taking purposeful derailment into account. Those who complained about multiple Warlord threads never complained about multiple threads about other classes hence I can honestly say that I have every reason to believe they have an agenda and that agenda appears to be to shutdown Warlord discussion. Guess what snowflakes it is not going to happen.

What other class gets the magnitude of multiple threads in as short a period of time as the warlord does? I honestly haven't seen one.

 

[pemerton]

From a narrative approach, having martial classes do things that were more or less magical was a bit odd.

I haven't chosen to reply to this particular post out of any intention to single it out. It was just an easily-quoted, clear statement of the point.

My response: I find the idea a bit odd that inspiring people, and thereby influencing the extent to which (i) they try as hard as they can, and (ii) they succeed when they try, should be cast as magical. (Unless we mean the everyday "magic" of human emotional responses - which are often a focus, and even a somewhat exagerated focus, of dramatic and melodramatic narratives.)


EDIT: There is a strange D&D legacy here. In AD&D, pushing someone is magical (the Push spell) - but in real life people can push others just with their physical strength. In AD&D and 3E, chopping someone's arm or head off with a sword is magical (vorpal or sharpness blade) - but in real life, everytime anyone was ever maimed or decpaitated by a sword it was not a magical occurence. In many editions of D&D magic can kill even a powerful being with a single lucky action, but a fighter wielding a normal sword cannot (too many hp to get through in one hit) - in real life, sometimes a single blow is enough to kill even a strong or skilled person.

The gating between magic and martial in D&D tradition seems more about the balance of the hit point system, the action economy, etc, than about considerations of what sorts of effects are or are not achievable only by dint of magic.

 

[Eubani]

What other class gets the magnitude of multiple threads in as short a period of time as the warlord does? I honestly haven't seen one.

Recently Druid and Sorcerer. Wizards constantly get a flow of threads. At various stage mostly depending on what is being released there is a glut of focused discussion yet due to agendas Warlord is where it should not happen for some reason.