Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="silentounce" data-source="post: 4447735" data-attributes="member: 67099">Fine, I'll play semantics with you.&nbsp; By your definition it is not power creep.&nbsp; Great!&nbsp; But that does not mean that it isn't problematic to deal with or not flawed.Btw, I think many here define power creep as follows: &quot;Power Creep refers to when the power level of ANY game begins to slowly rise over time.&quot;Definition found here in first post: <a href="http://forums.gleemax.com/archive/index.php/t-337392.html" target="_blank">http://forums.gleemax.com/archive/index.php/t-337392.html</a>Saying &quot;it's not power creep!&quot; and &quot;it IS!&quot; back and forth doesn't really mean anything when people don't define the word the same way.&nbsp; Maybe we should start a &quot;What is Power Creep?&quot; thread for that.And, as I said earlier, regardless of how you label this article it could definitely cause gameplay issues.&nbsp; It can't just be dropped into a campaign without work from the DM to determine what may be broken or not.&nbsp; He may have to spend more time adjusting DCs, etc.&nbsp; That didn't come out quite right, let me try this.&nbsp; A DM won't be able to add this to his game without changing other things to adjust for it.&nbsp; IMO, effective, well thought out supplemental material can simply be dropped into a campaign without the DM having to work to hard to balance things.&nbsp; When they talk 4e up on its balance and then do something like this... <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm&nbsp; &nbsp; :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" />&nbsp; And Noonan's&nbsp; commentary that accompanies this article is just ridiculous.&nbsp; A lot of things like this have already been mentioned in this thread so I won't repeat them here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="silentounce, post: 4447735, member: 67099"] Fine, I'll play semantics with you. By your definition it is not power creep. Great! But that does not mean that it isn't problematic to deal with or not flawed. Btw, I think many here define power creep as follows: "Power Creep refers to when the power level of ANY game begins to slowly rise over time." Definition found here in first post: [url]http://forums.gleemax.com/archive/index.php/t-337392.html[/url] Saying "it's not power creep!" and "it IS!" back and forth doesn't really mean anything when people don't define the word the same way. Maybe we should start a "What is Power Creep?" thread for that. And, as I said earlier, regardless of how you label this article it could definitely cause gameplay issues. It can't just be dropped into a campaign without work from the DM to determine what may be broken or not. He may have to spend more time adjusting DCs, etc. That didn't come out quite right, let me try this. A DM won't be able to add this to his game without changing other things to adjust for it. IMO, effective, well thought out supplemental material can simply be dropped into a campaign without the DM having to work to hard to balance things. When they talk 4e up on its balance and then do something like this... :hmm: And Noonan's commentary that accompanies this article is just ridiculous. A lot of things like this have already been mentioned in this thread so I won't repeat them here. [/QUOTE]

Verification