Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7919967" data-attributes="member: 42582">Yes. I don't think this is controversial. Allocating resources in a productive enterprise is all about having regard to opportunity costs.But choosing to play a particular class in a particular D&amp;D campaign is often, even perhaps typically, not like this - to begin with it's not an allocation of a productive resource. If you really want to play a wilderness warrior, start building it as a rogue because that's all you know about, and then someone shows you the ranger and you say Whoa, that's exactly what I wanted! there is no opportunity cost of not playing a rogue in building your PC as a ranger instead. There is an opportunity cost in spending some amount of time on the rebuilding rather than just getting on with the game, but that is a cost in time, not in rogues not played.How is one less rogue being played an opportunity cost? What potential gain was foregone? The gain of backstabbing rather than using hunter's quarry?And what cost are you talking about being suffered by other tables? How can a choice made at my table create an opportunity cost for someone else? The choice made at our table didn't affect anyone else's range of options nor the choice they might have made from among them.I think that what you say is probably a tautology, especially given that &quot;a good amount&quot; is most naturally defined as a good range of additional choices short of bloat or broken options.But as I posted upthread, is there any particular reason to think that the 5e PHB plus material published since has reached exactly that point? That nothing more can be added that is not either bloat or broken?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7919967, member: 42582"] Yes. I don't think this is controversial. Allocating resources in a productive enterprise is all about having regard to opportunity costs. But choosing to play a particular class in a particular D&D campaign is often, even perhaps typically, not like this - to begin with it's not an allocation of a productive resource. If you really want to play a wilderness warrior, start building it as a rogue because that's all you know about, and then someone shows you the ranger and you say [I]Whoa, that's exactly what I wanted! [/I]there is no opportunity cost of [I]not playing a rogue [/I]in building your PC as a ranger instead. There is an opportunity cost in spending some amount of time on the rebuilding rather than just getting on with the game, but that is a cost in [I]time[/I], not in [I]rogues not played[/I]. How is one less rogue being played an opportunity cost? What potential gain was foregone? The gain of backstabbing rather than using hunter's quarry? And what cost are you talking about being suffered by other tables? How can a choice made at my table create an opportunity cost for someone else? The choice made at our table didn't affect anyone else's range of options nor the choice they might have made from among them. I think that what you say is probably a tautology, especially given that "a good amount" is most naturally defined as [I]a good range of additional choices short of bloat or broken options[/I]. But as I posted upthread, is there any particular reason to think that the 5e PHB plus material published since has reached exactly that point? That nothing more can be added that is not either bloat or broken? [/QUOTE]

Verification