Examples of Power Creep?

[DungeonMaster]

Compare a "dwarven defender" to a "hammer of moradin".
That's PrC vs. PrC.

Compare allied defense feat from shining south vs. um epic combat expertise in complete warrior.
That's feat vs. feat.

Compare a warlock to sorceror.
That's class vs. class.

Stating "well the core 3.5 druid sets the bar" isn't an argument against powercreep.
Power creep is not the specific increase of one area, it's the general increase accross all areas.

It's there, it was there in 3rd, 2nd edition, 1st and heck even basic. It's just 3.5 power-creep is um, a little more blatant than previous editions.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

No it doesn't. You need only a ring of evasion. It's cheap and easy.

So...you need 25,000gp? And what happens when you lose the ring?

And must you bring this into every single thread?

 

[Pants]

Unfortunately, every book seems to have at least one fluke. Some have one or two, but I haven't really seen power creep.

The example Henry cited is often one of my favorite examples for pointing what exactly was wrong with some things in 3.0. The save DC's could go through the friggen roof, making straight spellcasters even more powerful than their nonspellcasting counterparts.

About the ONLY bit of power creep I've seen in 3.5 is the boosting of the Conjuration school. With Complete Arcane, Conjuration now has damage dealing spells that really step upon Evocation's toes. Plus, those Conjuration spells ignore SR :\

Complete Divine could be power creep for the already impressive Druid and Cleric, but I'm not sure about that yet.

 

[Enkhidu]

Well dang, I misvoted, based on the idea that 3.5 itself is an end product of power (as opposed to the idea that 3.5 has seen power creep since its release).

I don't have enough 3.5 supplements to really get a feel for the creep level in 3.5, but do believe that 3.5 itself showed a fair degree of power creep over 3.0 (in part because of the adoption of so many FR rules into the core).

 

[billd91]

While I don't have it and haven't analyzed it thoroughly, there are some things I've encountered from Races of Stone that give me pause. Using sleight of hand to hide spell-casting components is one. There's also a feat in there, I hear, that allows a gnome to use his dodge bonus against any large creatures and not just giants. Seems a bit power-creepy to me.

 

[Navar]

Compare a "dwarven defender" to a "hammer of moradin".
That's PrC vs. PrC.

Neither of these are more powerful than Straight Dwarf Fighter or even worse Dwarf Fighter/Barbarian. So as I said before if it is not more powerful than an existing build it isn't powercreep. (and I would likley argue that Dwarven defender is more powerfull because it is more broad in application)

Compare allied defense feat from shining south vs. um epic combat expertise in complete warrior.
That's feat vs. feat.

I don't know these off the of my head so I can't compare

Compare a warlock to sorceror.
That's class vs. class.

Sorceror is more powerful. Period.

Stating "well the core 3.5 druid sets the bar" isn't an argument against powercreep. Power creep is not the specific increase of one area, it's the general increase accross all areas.

It's there, it was there in 3rd, 2nd edition, 1st and heck even basic. It's just 3.5 power-creep is um, a little more blatant than previous editions.

Ok, HOW IS IT MORE BLATANT? Your examples don't stack up. (With the exception maybe an epic feat compaired to a setting feat.)

 

[Zappo]

I have played a lot of 2E, and what we have in 3.X is no power creep. Sure, we get more options with each book, and more options means that it becomes progressively harder for the designers to avoid abusive combos... but more options is kinda the point of releasing new books, isn't it? I mean, a certain degree of power-up is intrinsic in the addition of new rules. This is regardless of the system: it is inherent into the concept of "expansion book".

I can't judge 3.5 accurately, because I haven't bought any of the new splatbooks. But I don't think they will compare to the 2E psionics or big elf book.

 

[Furry]

I think there are some examples of power creep but on the whole it's nothing that the DM can't easily control, and it's not particularly broken. To me there is some power creep in that you can do somethings sooner, just look at the Epic Level Handbook, there are some feats in there that have equivalents that can be taken at lower levels thanks to the Complete and Races series'.

 

[Ravellion]

Yes, but only if you allow everything in the books - which I think should not be the baseline assumption, however much this peeves players.

Rav

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I don't see any evidence of 3.5 power creep, except perhaps in monsters.

My definition of power creep is:

a) New material regularly exceeds the upper limits set by older material, and each subsequent release raises the bar further.

OR

b) New material is significantly more powerful on average than older material, and each subsequent release increases the average to remain ahead of the curve.

3.5 doesn't meet either criteria in any meaningful way. It has a few areas of creep in b), but mostly in the sense of flattening the power curve out rather than bending it further.

CORE CLASSES

a) None of the core classes in the Complete books are as good as the best in the PHB, so they aren't raising the bar. Eberron's artificer is strong, but not as good as a druid or cleric. Nor are the Complete Adventurer classes better than (or even equal to) those in, say, Complete Divine. No creep.

b) Since there's a higher percentage of primary spellcasters in the Completes, their average is higher than the PHB's, but their average for any of the three primary archetypes (warrior, spellcaster, expert) is lower. Similarly, Eberron has a higher 'average' since its one base class is near the top. But, it hasn't followed up with additional above-average base classes. No creep.

PRESTIGE CLASSES

a) The best PrC in the DMG is probably the Archmage, although you could make a case for some of the others. The Hulking Hurler tops that, as does the Ur Priest. Evidence of DMG-Warrior-Divine bar raising. However, the bar lowered to DMG or sub-DMG levels with Arcane and Adventurer. Possible creep, but quickly corrected.

b) The average PrCs in the supplements are dragged down considerably by classes that would be sub-par in the first 10 character levels, still more when you actually have to qualify for them. Overall, the supplemental PrCs have a lower average. The warrior types are much better but still sub-par by the time they become available. No creep.

FEATS

a) The most powerful feat in the PHB is Natural Spell; its better than most very strong PrCs' capstone abilities. Combat Reflexes and Power Attack are probably 3. and 2., respectively. Nothing in the supplements comes close to natural spell, nor is their a visible trend toward feats stronger than CR or PA. No creep.

b) The average feat is probably a bit better, if only because the sub-par +2/+2 feats are largely absent. Creep, but slight and probably more balancing than not.

RACES

a) Dwarves are the most powerful PHB race; one could argue till the sun goes down (unless it is down in your area) what the best MM one is. Warforged and Goliaths are about the only really good races intended for PC use, and I don't see either as equal or better than dwarves. Because of monster creep, there may be slight monstrous race improvements, but considering the ruthless LAs, probably not. No meaningful creep.

b) The average in races is definitely better. WotC doesn't print substandard races like half-orc anymore; all the Eberron, XPH and Complete races are at or above the average. Definite creep here, but on a small scale.

MONSTER CREEP

a) Now we're talking. There are some absolutely brutal monsters out there who seem way undercosted for their CR. MM3 is definitely more powerful than MM1, with the exception of dragons who were already outrageous for their CRs. Definite creep, but not enough evidence to see if it will get worse.

b) Even worse than a) - the average of MM3 is closer to the upper tier of MM1. Massive creep, but no pattern yet.