How do you define "power creep", and why do you think it's bad?

[FireLance]

Consider the following scenarios:

1. A DM wants to run a high-powered game, so he gives all PCs one feat at every odd level and an ability score increase at every even level instead of the regular progression.

2. WotC releases a high-powered campaign setting, and the rules for that setting allow PCs to gain one feat at every odd level, and an ability score increase at every even level.

3. A DM thinks that a particular class or race is underpowered, so he gives it an extra mechanical benefit, e.g. fighters get a bonus feat every level.

4. WotC releases a supplement containing feats that can only be taken as fighter bonus feats by 4th-level or higher fighters that are about twice as powerful as regular feats.

Which of the above would you consider to be "power creep", and why? Do you think it is a bad thing, and if so, why?

Please avoid bashing any specific edition of D&D in your answers.

 

[Deovalente]

hmmm.
power creep?
You're making reference to fighters getting boosted powers.
They need it.
I've got players in the upper teens that are all spell casters.
They've got enough fire power to blast any fighter.

I don't know which fighter feats you're making reference to
over 4th level. Where are they found? If they don't help fighters
deal with spell casters, it won't make much difference.

 

[theredrobedwizard]

They're all technically power creep. Power creep is the tendency for more powerful options to be released slowly over the course of a game system's life. 2nd Edition's Skills and Powers was a good example.

Deovalente, the OP was simply making conjecture, not specifically referencing new feats. That said, there are several feats in the Player's Handbook II that require specific levels of Fighter in order to qualify for. One, Weapon Supremacy, requires 18 levels of Fighter.

-TRRW

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

1. No. Power-creep in the common vernacular refers to a gradual *system wide* increase in power. Anything within a campaign, especially at the DM's instigation, doesn't really apply.

2. Maybe -- it only really applies to that campaign setting. However, it can be perceived as such if the setting is so widespread, or use of its supplements so common, that people fail to differentiate between the system and the setting. Also, if the campaign setting ends up being the new 'floor' and subsequent settings raise the bar again, then it is.

3. No, because its at the DM's initiative, and intended to correct a perceived problem *for him*. OTOH, if the publisher released an errata that said that sorcerors should get a bunch of bonus feats, that would be considered power creep.

4. Yes. Persumably its not tied to a campaign setting or other nominally restricted subset of the entire game. Fighters are core and near-universal; such feats would up the power curve and effectively obsolete large chunks of pre-existing content.

I think the litmus test for power-creep is when you find whole swaths of older content being relegated to the dustbin in favor of the new 133t stuff. It can be kinda hard to tell, sometimes, especially for experienced players, as it may be more the 'ooh, shiny!' effect on jaded players more than a mechanical bias in favor of the new stuff.

 

[Vrecknidj]

1. Not power creep, because it's in-house.

2. Potentially power creep; if it alters the gameplay generally (i.e. people from other settings adopt it), then, yes.

3. Not power creep, because it's in-house.

4. Yes. This is an illustration of a subsequent product offering more power than its predecessors, so, I'd call it power creep. However, as a supplement, it can avoid this status by being ignored by a wide enough base of players (but this probably won't happen).

I do not think power creep is a bad thing, but it has to be kept in check. The slow progression toward more powerful abilities is okay so long as they don't eliminate the desire of some players to stick with older options. If, after a short period, nobody takes Great Cleave anymore, or no caster ever takes magic missile, then, probably, something too powerful has been introduced.

So, if power creep leaves previous powerful options viable, it's okay, if it doesn't, it's not okay.

Dave

 

[Darklone]

The 3.0 splatbooks were no power creep, that was power hopping.

 

[Greg K]

I agree with the others that wrote 1 and 3 are not, 2 potentially, and 4 yes. And honestly, instead of the power creep to make the melee fighters more attractive, I'd rather the designers tone down the dedicated casters.

 

[WayneLigon]

Option 4 would be the only thing I might consider 'power creep'.

Option 1: It's my campaign and I might have a very good reason for doing it. In fact in my current campaign they get a 36 point build.

Option 2: It's an optional setting and doesn't have to be used.

Option 3: Comes close, but I'd assume that it was a legit re-adjustment to a class perceived as underpowered.

Option 4 offers a much more general set of abilities not tied to a setting or simulating a genre; they have no other stated reason for existing than to up the power level. They are still optional of course but the general perception would be that they are 'less optional' than other things.

 

[Crothian]

I like power creep. Anything that makes more people whine and complain is a good thing.

 

[Li Shenron]

3. A DM thinks that a particular class or race is underpowered, so he gives it an extra mechanical benefit, e.g. fighters get a bonus feat every level.

4. WotC releases a supplement containing feats that can only be taken as fighter bonus feats by 4th-level or higher fighters that are about twice as powerful as regular feats.

Which of the above would you consider to be "power creep", and why? Do you think it is a bad thing, and if so, why?

A single step doesn't make a "power creep" yet.

What I would call "power creep" is the tendency of thinking "this class / character concept is too weak, it needs a boost" (could be both in house rules or published books), then having to boost a second class to compensate, a third class and so on, like in continual overtaking.

I don't think it's bad per se to "boost characters", if more or less everyone gets to be boosted about the same. But I do think it's bad to believe in the NEED of boosting, it could make a gamer perpetually unsatisfied by the options at his disposal, and make him think too much about adjusting his character instead of playing it.