Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[ChrisCarlson]

Not understanding the meaning is different then it not having a meaning.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

I don't see the warlord as moving backwards.

Evidently the devs beg to differ. <shrug>

 

[mellored]

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

I did explain it simply. It's just not understood.

The same way someone who only spoke Russian couldn't explain it to someone who only spoke Japanese. There's not enough common language between us.

Evidently the devs beg to differ. <shrug>

Isn't the premise of this thread that the devs included warlords already?

Why would they do that if they thought it was a step backwards?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I did explain it simply. It's just not understood.

The same way someone who only spoke Russian couldn't explain it to someone who only spoke Japanese. There's not enough common language between us.

And yet, you told me upthread:

"I understand it just fine.
But i don't know how to communicate it to you."

Albert would surely disagree that you understand it well enough to explained it simply.

Isn't the premise of this thread that the devs included warlords already?

Kinda. More like the warlord's footprint. The essence of what it represents made into something that fits 5e's core system paradigm. So, yes. Just like every single other class. Just like the assassin and berserker you propped up as examples earlier. Just like those.

Why would they do that if they thought it was a step backwards?

You misspeak. Or misunderstand. I clearly explained that it would be a step backwards to bring the 4e warlord directly into 5e. Which they did not do. Because that would be a step backwards. Instead, they took the essence of what the warlord represents and brought it into and within the framework and parameters of what 5e is designed to do. But I know you already know all this. You just keep wanting to tilt at the windmill none-the-less.

 

[mellored]

And yet, you told me upthread:

"I understand it just fine.
But i don't know how to communicate it to you."

Albert would surely disagree that you understand it well enough to explained it simply.

Albert would not expect people with 2 different languages to communicate easily.

You misspeak. Or misunderstand.

Perhaps you don't understand it well enough to explain it simply.

nstead, they took the essence of what the warlord represents and brought it into and within the framework and parameters of what 5e is designed to do.

Yes, i agree they attempted to bring the warlord into 5e. But i don't think they fully succeed. Like the ranger, it falls short of many people's expectations.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Albert would not expect people with 2 different languages to communicate easily.

Really? We are clearly both typing in fluent English. Maybe you should take a couple long, deep breaths, consider what it is you are wanting to convey, and try.

Perhaps you don't understand it well enough to explain it simply.

Pedantry? Lame. I'm not the one admitting I don't know how to explain my point. Quite the opposite, in fact, over here.

Yes, i agree they attempted to bring the warlord into 5e. But i don't think they fully succeed.

As long as you are not deluding yourself and that you understand you are in a tiny minority, possibly shrinking further still, we're all good here.

Like the ranger, it falls short of many people's expectations.

Your use of the word "many" lacks context.

 

[mellored]

Pedantry? Lame. I'm not the one admitting I don't know how to explain my point. Quite the opposite, in fact, over here.

You are correct. You do not admit to any failure on your part, nor on failure of language as a system.

You blame me for not understanding you.
You blame me for you not understanding me.

As long as you are not deluding yourself and that you understand you are in a tiny minority, possibly shrinking further still, we're all good here.

Your use of the word "many" lacks context.

Your use of the word "minority" lacks context.

Not sure why that matters though. Even if i was the only one in the entire universe wanted a warlord, that's not a reason to deny me the ability to play one.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

You are correct. You do not admit to any failure on your part, nor on failure of language as a system.

You blame me for not understanding you.
You blame me for you not understanding me.

Just to be clear. You came into my thread looking to disagree, but failed to explain how. Other than warlords should exist because other classes can be compared to themselves. Whatever that even means. I'm still waiting on an explanation for that gem.

Your use of the word "minority" lacks context.

Nope. Self evident. You are a tiny minority of complainers demanding something that is never, ever, never going to happen (the porting in of a 4e warlord whole-cloth into 5e). Unless you have some kind of evidence that shows this "many" you claim.

I also find it humorous that you just tried to elevate the "we need a real warlord" camp up to equal footing with the "rangers suck" decriers. BTW, a fair contingent of the "rangers suck" camp advocates as such because it is not more like the 4e version. I find that more than just a little interesting. Don't you?

Not sure why that matters though. Even if i was the only one in the entire universe wanted a warlord, that's not a reason to deny me the ability to play one.

Strawman now? Yikes. No one is denying you anything. Show me where I said that. In fact I believe the opposite. Play any number of countless 5e appropriate warlord builds that already exist in 5e.

 

[mellored]

Just to be clear. You came into my thread looking to disagree, but failed to explain how. Other than warlords should exist because other classes can be compared to themselves. Whatever that even means. I'm still waiting on an explanation for that gem.

I tried to explain why people want a warlord even after the battlemaster, PDK, and mastermind already exist.

You failed, or as it is beginning to seem more likely, you simply choose not to comprehend.

BTW, a fair contingent of the "rangers suck" camp advocates as such because it is not more like the 4e version. I find that more than just a little interesting. Don't you?

No.

No one is denying you anything. Show me where I said that.

A paragraph above.

"You are a tiny minority of complainers demanding something that is never, ever, never going to happen".

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I tried to explain why people want a warlord even after the battlemaster, PDK, and mastermind already exist.

You failed, or as it is beginning to seem more likely, you simply choose not to comprehend.

That's just more dancing around rather than explaining how a 4e-style warlord is necessary because somehow other classes are justified via comparison to themselves.

Warlord should exist because assassin has full class rogue?
Warlord should exist because berserker has full class barbarian?

Using that logic: Warlord exists because warlord have fighter (and rogue, and feats, and backgrounds...).

No.

Telling. Because I see a distinct parallel. Can you guess what the two complaints have in common?

A paragraph above.

"You are a tiny minority of complainers demanding something that is never, ever, never going to happen".

Strawman again. That's not me telling you you can't play a warlord. That's me telling you that the devs are not going to give you a direct-4e-port-over warlord in 5e. Thems just hard facts.

Rather, I'm the one who's been repeatedly telling you how many awesome warlord options there already are in 5e, and that you should totally try them out and have fun.

 

[mellored]

That's just more dancing around rather than explaining how a 4e-style warlord is necessary

Necessary for what?

I would like to play a full warlord in 5e.

Telling. Because I see a distinct parallel. Can you guess what the two complaints have in common?

I don't care enough to try.

Rather, I'm the one who's been repeatedly telling you how many awesome warlord options there already are in 5e, and that you should totally try them out and have fun.

I have tried them. And i found them lacking.

That's why i'm on this forum.

Why are you here?