Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 3293951" data-attributes="member: 22882">Houserules can be ill-advised (I don't think this one is, btw, although it makes fighters even worse than they already are at higher levels), but I'd never call them power creep.This seems like an odd rule to be setting-specific, but it's not really power creep.Houserules can be ill-advised (and this one probably is: a strange combination of overkill and not solving the problem), but I'd never call them power creep.This is the only one of the four that's arguably an example of power creep.&nbsp; In this case, it's a beneficial example, because high-level fighters need high level feats to solve the inherent problems with the class.I'm inclined to say this *is* an example of power creep.&nbsp; In Magic: the Gathering, releasing a set where the weakest card is actually pretty good, and the best card is just as good as in the previous set, is an example of power creep.&nbsp; The total power level of the set is higher, and if it is taken as the standard for the following set: bam, power creep.In Magic, which has by and large avoided this problem by being perhaps the most heavily developed game in the world, this is objectively bad.&nbsp; Power creep obsoletes previous sets, and even on a per-set basis some cards are intentionally weaker than others to support the draft format.In D&amp;D, this isn't really the case.&nbsp; Power creep would still obsolete previous books, but the goal is to create even power levels between characters, not uneven ones.&nbsp; If one character type is weak, producing additional options that make it more powerful, although power creep in the Magic sense, is a beneficial change.&nbsp; On the other hand, producing new options that make, say, a druid more powerful is probably an example of bad power creep, because the druid already outshines most other types when played to the hilt.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoogleEmpMog, post: 3293951, member: 22882"] Houserules can be ill-advised (I don't think this one is, btw, although it makes fighters even worse than they already are at higher levels), but I'd never call them power creep. This seems like an odd rule to be setting-specific, but it's not really power creep. Houserules can be ill-advised (and this one probably is: a strange combination of overkill and not solving the problem), but I'd never call them power creep. This is the only one of the four that's arguably an example of power creep. In this case, it's a beneficial example, because high-level fighters need high level feats to solve the inherent problems with the class. I'm inclined to say this *is* an example of power creep. In Magic: the Gathering, releasing a set where the weakest card is actually pretty good, and the best card is just as good as in the previous set, is an example of power creep. The total power level of the set is higher, and if it is taken as the standard for the following set: bam, power creep. In Magic, which has by and large avoided this problem by being perhaps the most heavily developed game in the world, this is objectively bad. Power creep obsoletes previous sets, and even on a per-set basis some cards are intentionally weaker than others to support the draft format. In D&D, this isn't really the case. Power creep would still obsolete previous books, but the goal is to create even power levels between characters, not uneven ones. If one character type is weak, producing additional options that make it more powerful, although power creep in the Magic sense, is a beneficial change. On the other hand, producing new options that make, say, a druid more powerful is probably an example of bad power creep, because the druid already outshines most other types when played to the hilt. [/QUOTE]

Verification