Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Riastlin" data-source="post: 5506157" data-attributes="member: 94022">Of course. But then, not all of the remaining 103 pages of errata not from PHB1 is dealing with player options either. Some of it is dealing with SC's, or with diseases, etc.&nbsp;&nbsp;This is exactly our point. Your argument has been that there's a definite power creep due to all these new options, synergies, etc. which is what forced the change in monster damage.&nbsp; And yet, it seems evident that they learned their lessons and made far fewer mistakes as time went on. Those new options were not inherently more powerful and/or too powerful. Rather, they were just right. More options does not have to mean more power. Ideally, more options simply mean more options. A character that chooses to use a hammer instead of a sword for instance should, ideally, be equally effective as the sword user for instance. Just because he has access to a second weapon should not mean that he's more powerful. Same goes for powers, feats, etc. If the later books were showing a clear trend of power creep as you have suggested, then we would be seeing at least as much errata, if not more. Instead though, most of the errata is from the earliest book(s) which would suggest that power creep is not, in fact, a problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Riastlin, post: 5506157, member: 94022"] Of course. But then, not all of the remaining 103 pages of errata not from PHB1 is dealing with player options either. Some of it is dealing with SC's, or with diseases, etc. This is exactly our point. Your argument has been that there's a definite power creep due to all these new options, synergies, etc. which is what forced the change in monster damage. And yet, it seems evident that they learned their lessons and made far fewer mistakes as time went on. Those new options were not inherently more powerful and/or too powerful. Rather, they were just right. More options does not have to mean more power. Ideally, more options simply mean more options. A character that chooses to use a hammer instead of a sword for instance should, ideally, be equally effective as the sword user for instance. Just because he has access to a second weapon should not mean that he's more powerful. Same goes for powers, feats, etc. If the later books were showing a clear trend of power creep as you have suggested, then we would be seeing at least as much errata, if not more. Instead though, most of the errata is from the earliest book(s) which would suggest that power creep is not, in fact, a problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification