Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7899396" data-attributes="member: 42582">If your argument was true in general, then every spell added to the wizard spell list would be a bad or at least unhelpful thing. Whereas in fact I would conjecture that additions to the MU/wizard spell list is the single most frequently published game element in the history of D&D. (Maybe there have been more monsters. That could be the only rival category.)I also don't see how you reconcile your argument with the fact that the class list, and within that the lists of class abilities, has changed and (generally) grown over the history of D&D. The introduction of paladins, rangers and barbarians almost certainly has reduced the number of fighters who get played. Just as the introduction of warlocks, sorcerers and druids probably reduces the number of MUs/wizard played. Is that an argument against the introduction of those classes? Is there some virtue in playing the "original" stuff?I also don't see that the notion of opportunity cost is salient here. In my main 4e game no one played a rogue. But the guy who played a ranger might have played a rouge instead had there been no ranger option. But it's not a cost to our table (opportunity or otherwise) not to see a rogue in play. Just as it's not any sort of cost that in all my years of AD&D play I've never seen anyone memorise Affect Normal Fires.</blockquote>