Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7042835" data-attributes="member: 22779">The problem with the discussion isn't that there is disagreement over what a warlord should be able to do.  That's what sub-classes are FOR after all.  The problem is, that every... single... discussion... gets derailed by multiple posters jumping in and telling all and sundry that warlords shouldn't be in the game at all.  Which winds up doing exactly what those posters want - derailing any actual discussion of value while not having to actually bring any argument of substance to the conversation.How many umpteen thousand times do you have to justify the archetype?  Good grief, even in this, the what tenth thread in a week, we have people questioning whether or not the very concept of a warlord actually exists as a class.  So, we spend pages trying to defend just the notion that we want this class, and every single thread gets derailed.And then it gets shoved into the forum ghetto where these self-same "defenders of all things D&D" pounce out in every single thread, continuing to derail thread after thread until people just give up in frustration.It's sanctioned trolling.My vote?  One week ban to ANYONE who goes into a warlord thread and questions whether we should have warlords in the game or not.  Want to talk about new mechanics or how to actually implement concepts in a game?  Fantastic.  Want to come into yet another thread and tell all and sundry that warlords are an anathema to role play because they tell players how to feel?  Welcome to a one week holiday from the forum.Then, maybe, we can actually have constructive conversations about warlords.</blockquote>

Verification