D&D 5E Warlord Name Poll

[ChrisCarlson]

What's the strawman?

The part where you completely went off the rails. None of what you went into has anything to do with my point. My point that your argument, regarding warlord-granted benefits being "optional", sets up a passive-aggressive dynamic where the other players will feel compelled to accept them rather than make the warlord player feel as though they are not contributing. Thereby tacitly granting the authority over the other PCs that the warlord player was seeking in the first place.

Bards and clerics also suck without teamwork. And several wizard or sorcerer builds as well.

The same strawman. I'm not talking about teamwork. Or sucking. At least not in that sense. The "sucking" I am referring to is the potential leverage sucking grants the warlord player if the others at the table regularly refuse his "optional" benefits. Benefits largely being granted through the various guises of leadership, authority or advice.

What do you find different about the warlord saying "go attack that guy and get a bonus" vs a rogue saying "go attack that guy so i can get sneak attack"?

The lack of relevance here leads me to believe you are not arguing in good faith. And that's unfortunate.

And what back peddling?

A simple apology would have been better. Rather than trying to pretend you weren't being insulting to me and/or my friends by strongly implying our immaturity is the likely reason we are seeing things differently thatn you and your much more mature friends.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Interesting aside (at least to me)...

Fascinating that I am discussing socio-psychological triggers, by certain design applications of the class in question, that can potentially influence and manipulate other players, even subconsciously. And you come back with, "but other characters can suck too." And you think I'm the immature one.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

[MENTION=6801216]ChrisCarlson[/MENTION] Sounds to me like a case of duelling strawmen.

Straw the First: There's nothing whatsoever wrong with a situation where every single other player completely ignores any benefits provided to them by a particular fellow-player.

Straw the Second: Everybody who plays absolutely must always play as a team player or they're a horrible person.

Oddly, I don't actually see the second strawman present in either Mellored's argument or Mr. Vargas's. Both seem to have come from your posts, or your (re)interpretation of others' posts.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

[MENTION=6801216]ChrisCarlson[/MENTION] Sounds to me like a case of duelling strawmen.

Straw the First: There's nothing whatsoever wrong with a situation where every single other player completely ignores any benefits provided to them by a particular fellow-player.

Straw the Second: Everybody who plays absolutely must always play as a team player or they're a horrible person.

Oddly, I don't actually see the second strawman present in either Mellored's argument or Mr. Vargas's. Both seem to have come from your posts, or your (re)interpretation of others' posts.

Looks like a strawman accusation of a strawman. And a pretty flimsy one. All this arguing in bad faith is starting to get messy. I never called anyone a horrible person, nor described a case where they would be, either way. Lest you can quote my saying such, you are just playing an instigator and fanning flames. Which is not okay.

But I will have to call 'BS' on your first "straw". I flat out do not believe that you would be okay playing a warlord, who routinely wasted their actions, offering benefits that were turned down by the other players due to situational and/or roleplaying reasons. Nope. Not buying it for a second. It's so highly unlikely, you'd be a rare, special snowflake if it were true. And since snowflakes cases are not a solid basis on which to build game features, you'd have to be, by necessity, marginalized. Sorry but that's just good game design. You can't cater to outliers.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Looks like a strawman accusation of a strawman. And a pretty flimsy one. All this arguing in bad faith is starting to get messy. I never called anyone a horrible person, nor described a case where they would be, either way. Lest you can quote my saying such, you are just playing an instigator and fanning flames. Which is not okay.

But I will have to call 'BS' on your first "straw". I flat out do not believe that you would be okay playing a warlord, who routinely wasted their actions, offering benefits that were turned down by the other players due to situational and/or roleplaying reasons. Nope. Not buying it for a second. It's so highly unlikely, you'd be a rare, special snowflake if it were true. And since snowflakes cases are not a solid basis on which to build game features, you'd have to be, by necessity, marginalized. Sorry but that's just good game design. You can't cater to outliers.

It seems I was not clear.

I absolutely DO think there's something wrong with a situation where a particular player is offering aid to allies, and that aid is consistently, without fail or deviation, ignored or even scorned by the recipients. That's called the other players being a-holes. I don't care what classes we're talking about here: any argument that is predicated on everyone else in the group treating someone to a constant cold shoulder is exactly what you're talking about: 'catering to outliers.'

I'm not saying you DID call people that. I'm saying that's the position you're ascribing to other people. You're saying that any proponent of the Warlord class is 100% behind a player who gets whiny and pissy the moment a single other person doesn't do EXACTLY what they said, how they said, with the resources they offered. In other, simpler terms, this hypothetical Warlord player is the one saying, "Everyone who plays must be a team player, or they're a horrible person."

Both of these are just as "catering to outliers" as what you are accusing me of doing. The first is catering to the outlier of "everyone in the group is okay with ignoring the contributions of a particular player, all the time, forever." The second is catering to the outlier of, "A player constantly harangues the others when they don't dance to her tune." Both of these things are completely ridiculous extremes.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Thanks for the proof that your defending of warlord features as "voluntary", that the recipient need not accept them, is just lip service. That the other players choosing not to accept the benefits is a-hole behavior IYO. Yep, as I've been positing, playing a warlord is basically a player telling the rest of the group he expects to have at least some modicum of dominion over the other PCs lest they be big meanies who are stepping on his fun. Gotcha.

 

[mellored]

My point is that it is not a warlord problem.

ANY class can use the aid-other action, giving some an "optional" benefit. A wizard can give the ranger advantage to attack particular creature, and then the ranger can cast spiked growth somewhere else.

The same strawman. I'm not talking about teamwork. Or sucking. At least not in that sense. The "sucking" I am referring to is the potential leverage sucking grants the warlord player if the others at the table regularly refuse his "optional" benefits. Benefits largely being granted through the various guises of leadership, authority or advice.

It's not a strawman. It's a serious question.

Tell me how it's different for a warlord then a wizard to say "you have advantage to hit this guy".
Or for a warlord / bard / cleric (Edit: or warlock) to say "you can use your reaction to attack that guy".
Perhaps i'm missing something.

I'm certainly willing to admit i'm wrong if i am.

A simple apology would have been better. Rather than trying to pretend you weren't being insulting to me and/or my friends by strongly implying our immaturity is the likely reason we are seeing things differently thatn you and your much more mature friends.

I didn't say anything about your friends.

Just my lack of experience with less mature people. I don't know how they think or act. Though i'm willing to learn.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

My point is that it is not a warlord problem.

ANY class can use the aid-other action, giving some an "optional" benefit. A wizard can give the ranger advantage to attack particular creature, and then the ranger can cast spiked growth somewhere else.

Then why do we need a warlord at all if any character can already do it?

It's not a strawman. It's a serious question.

Tell me how it's different for a warlord then a wizard to say "you have advantage to hit this guy".
Or for a warlord / bard / cleric (Edit: or warlock) to say "you can use your reaction to attack that guy".
Perhaps i'm missing something.

How many conversations must there be about how application matters? What is the warlord doing to achieve that effect? He's telling other PCs how they think and/or feel ("Do this thing because you look up to me," "Here something to help you because I inspire you."). Or worse, how to better do their own shtick ("You know, if you did your job this way instead you can also do this... and better!"). Wizards, clerics, bards, and warlocks are not doing that. That's what "you are missing". I'm happy to remind you of what you seemingly forgot from all those countless debates.

I'm certainly willing to admit i'm wrong if i am.

Are you? Where's the evidence for that assertion?

I didn't say anything about your friends.

Just my lack of experience with less mature people. I don't know how they think or act. Though i'm willing to learn.

We all know how implication works. At least I should hope so. Do you think you are being clever?

I need to rethink my opinion of some people around here who I thought were above cheap blows. The sentence immediately prior in no way implies I'm talking about mellored as evident by my not having named him in it.

 

[mellored]

Then why do we need a warlord at all if any character can already do it?

To do it better then aid another and non-magical.

How many conversations must there be about how application matters? What is the warlord doing to achieve that effect? He's telling other PCs how they think and/or feel ("Do this thing because you look up to me," "Here something to help you because I inspire you."). Or worse, how to better do their own shtick ("You know, if you did your job this way instead you can also do this... and better!"). Wizards, clerics, bards, and warlocks are not doing that. That's what "you are missing". I'm happy to remind you of what you seemingly forgot from all those countless debates.

And that makes people more passive aggressive?

Though i don't see how bards arn't doing it, or to a lesser extent clerics.
Edit: Or paladins. "Stand next to me and you will be afraid of nothing!"

 

[ChrisCarlson]

That you "don't see" the differences speaks not to their existence.