Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gothic_Demon" data-source="post: 2043405" data-attributes="member: 19828">Too Complex for Power Creep?Just a thought, but isn't DnD a little too complex for power creep?Take Magic (as I feel this thread is probably hinting at as its source). If all the 2 mana cards in Core are 2/2, and all the 2 mana cards in Expansion 1 are 3/3, and all the 2 mana cards in Expansion 2 are 4/4, we are looking at Power Creep.For DnD, this process is a little more difficult. Is Class A significantly and definably more powerful than class B? This is either so obvious it hurts or so subtle as to have us arguing over it on these boards for months. Is the Sorcerer underpowered? Is the Druid overpowered? I've been seeing these arguments since 3.5 began.I'm not sure that DnD can be easily marked with a power-creep stamp. Some of the classes that come out in the newer books seem to be a little more powerful than core (Favoured Soul from the MH, or the Psion from XPH, in my opinion), some seem obviously weaker (Healer from the MH?), some are just different takes on a concept. Wizards tends to keep an eye on its power creep, carefully matching the core classes in its supplement books with the original core classes, and neither over or underpowering them deliberately, and giving them more flavour than new powers.I think the issue comes with mixing and matching supplements (as others have said), that were never meant to be matched, (such as using FR supplements in a non-FR game). These supplements are often internally balanced, and don't mesh well with others. (Think 2e Dark Sun, and the races and classes therein).So is there a lot of power creep? No, but rather some power playing creeps...</blockquote>

Verification