airwalkrr
Adventurer
1 and 3 are definitely NOT power creep. 2 is possibly power creep, however, considering that it applies only to one campaign setting and not the game as a whole, I'd lean towards saying no. 4 is the simplest form of power creep presented in this list.
I define power creep as additions to the core set of rules that make other options in the core set of rules unpalatable or useless in comparison. For example, if the core rules contain a feat that grants a +2 bonus to an ability, and a new splatbook is released that grants a +4 bonus to the same ability with some very minor restriction (like a caster level prerequisite), that would be power creep.
Power creep generally only applies when talking about the core set of rules, although there can be power creep within campaign settings as well. For instance, Eberron uses action points but the core rules do not, therefore the addition of action points to the game in this manner is not power creep (unless Eberron is so popular that it becomes part of the core set of rules). However, if a new Eberron book is released that allows characters to have more uses for their action points with no strings attached, that would be power creep within the Eberron setting, especially if the new uses are decidedly better than the previously accepted uses. For a purely hypothetical example, if a new Eberron book allows your character to use 1 action point to gain any class ability from any class for 1 hour, that is much better than the existing rule that you can spend 2 action points to gain an additional use of a class ability you already have, and therfore makes the old rule obsolete, adding overall power to the typical Eberron character.
There is a difference in a lateral increase in the number of options in the game and a vertical increase. For instance, a new feat that grants +2 to Decipher Script and Knowledge (history) checks would not really be power creep. It is commensurate with a number of feats that already exist in the game and therefore represents a lateral increase in the number of options (new options of the same power level). However, if a new feat that grants a +2 to Balance, Climb, and Tumble checks is introduced, it is greater in power than a number of feats that already exist in the game and therefore represents a vertical increase in the number of options (new options of a higher power level).
Why I think power creep is bad is very simple from a consumer point of view. It makes my old books obsolete. A monster that was a CR 15 in the three core rulebooks is no longer as challenging if a large amount of power creep is introduced into the game that makes the monster easier to handle. If the average power of the PCs increases without increasing their level while the power of the monster stays the same, then the CR 15 monster from the old book is no longer an appropriate challenge for the same PCs. I would have to playtest the monster extensively to determine its new CR or simply wing it and get an imprecise estimate on the challenge the creature poses to the party. Either way, my use for the old book is dimished, if not ruined. I often don't have time for such inconveniences.
On the other hand, from a corporate point of view, power creep is great for business in the same way that designing a product to fall apart the day after its warranty expires is good for business. It keeps customers buying your product because their old product is obsolete. I don't decry the industry for thinking this way. It is a very logical and rational thing to do, and being motivated by money is a base instinct for humanity. But it still annoys the piss out of me because it jostles my campaigns around when I have an established power level and a player wants to introduce a new character using a brand new book that has options far more powerful than any previous books. I am forced to make one of two difficult decisions: a) be the bad guy and tell the player "no" or b) let the player have fun and be forced to restructure my entire campaign to make sure the challenge level remains intact.
I define power creep as additions to the core set of rules that make other options in the core set of rules unpalatable or useless in comparison. For example, if the core rules contain a feat that grants a +2 bonus to an ability, and a new splatbook is released that grants a +4 bonus to the same ability with some very minor restriction (like a caster level prerequisite), that would be power creep.
Power creep generally only applies when talking about the core set of rules, although there can be power creep within campaign settings as well. For instance, Eberron uses action points but the core rules do not, therefore the addition of action points to the game in this manner is not power creep (unless Eberron is so popular that it becomes part of the core set of rules). However, if a new Eberron book is released that allows characters to have more uses for their action points with no strings attached, that would be power creep within the Eberron setting, especially if the new uses are decidedly better than the previously accepted uses. For a purely hypothetical example, if a new Eberron book allows your character to use 1 action point to gain any class ability from any class for 1 hour, that is much better than the existing rule that you can spend 2 action points to gain an additional use of a class ability you already have, and therfore makes the old rule obsolete, adding overall power to the typical Eberron character.
There is a difference in a lateral increase in the number of options in the game and a vertical increase. For instance, a new feat that grants +2 to Decipher Script and Knowledge (history) checks would not really be power creep. It is commensurate with a number of feats that already exist in the game and therefore represents a lateral increase in the number of options (new options of the same power level). However, if a new feat that grants a +2 to Balance, Climb, and Tumble checks is introduced, it is greater in power than a number of feats that already exist in the game and therefore represents a vertical increase in the number of options (new options of a higher power level).
Why I think power creep is bad is very simple from a consumer point of view. It makes my old books obsolete. A monster that was a CR 15 in the three core rulebooks is no longer as challenging if a large amount of power creep is introduced into the game that makes the monster easier to handle. If the average power of the PCs increases without increasing their level while the power of the monster stays the same, then the CR 15 monster from the old book is no longer an appropriate challenge for the same PCs. I would have to playtest the monster extensively to determine its new CR or simply wing it and get an imprecise estimate on the challenge the creature poses to the party. Either way, my use for the old book is dimished, if not ruined. I often don't have time for such inconveniences.
On the other hand, from a corporate point of view, power creep is great for business in the same way that designing a product to fall apart the day after its warranty expires is good for business. It keeps customers buying your product because their old product is obsolete. I don't decry the industry for thinking this way. It is a very logical and rational thing to do, and being motivated by money is a base instinct for humanity. But it still annoys the piss out of me because it jostles my campaigns around when I have an established power level and a player wants to introduce a new character using a brand new book that has options far more powerful than any previous books. I am forced to make one of two difficult decisions: a) be the bad guy and tell the player "no" or b) let the player have fun and be forced to restructure my entire campaign to make sure the challenge level remains intact.
