D&D General Is power creep bad?

[Snarf Zagyg]

All of which ignores the question I asked.

Is it possible to add things to the game, which result in an increase in power/versatility, in such a way that this addition is a good thing? If yes, then a further question: does the term "power creep" refer to these changes as well as changes where the addition is a bad thing?

I don't think I did ignore anything you wrote- I told you exactly what my opinion was.

But to answer your question(s).
1. Power is not the same as versatility.

2. You are attaching a normative value ("good") to the "adding things" which result in an "increase in power[.]"
-When you say something vaguely, you can't answer it properly. Anything can be "good" or "bad" depending on how it is specified. For example, imagine a D&D game that is released with 6 classes. Five of the classes are roughly equivalent in power, and one of them is woefully underpowered. After a few years, they release a revised version of the sixth class that does nothing more than match the power of the other five. Is that an increase in power? Yes. But that's not how most people think of power creep. Again, if you are using the term in a different way (or narrowly applying it to a single change, which is somewhat different than "creep"), then it's difficult to discuss given how most people define the term.

3. " If yes, then a further question: does the term "power creep" refer to these changes as well as changes where the addition is a bad thing?"

 

[CleverNickName]

Exploration has absolutely been ruined by power creep. It started in the PH with the ranger and the outlander background.

I'm not sure I follow. How have the PHB ranger and the Outlander background "ruined" exploration? And how is either one an example of "power creep"?

Serious questions, not trolling.

 

[Oofta]

I will infiltrate the bards by whatever means available and terminate them ... with extreme prejudice.

Eliminating the competition so you're the only bard left? Sounds like the plot for some movies I've seen.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm not sure I follow. How have the PHB ranger and the Outlander background "ruined" exploration? And how is either one an example of "power creep"?

Serious questions, not trolling.

They give the players a chance to opt out of the annoying and arduous parts of it, which is a lot of DM's favorite part.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm not sure I follow. How have the PHB ranger and the Outlander background "ruined" exploration? And how is either one an example of "power creep"?

Serious questions, not trolling.

Huh.

I'm not sure how the options presented in the core books of a given edition can be power creep?

 

[Reynard]

They give the players a chance to opt out of the annoying and arduous parts of it, which is a lot of DM's favorite part.

While I agree with the sentiment that those options invalidate a fun part of the game, I don't think they really fit the definition of power creep. Rather, I think they represent a shift in the nature of D&D as a game away from one kind of fantasy to another.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm not sure I follow. How have the PHB ranger and the Outlander background "ruined" exploration? And how is either one an example of "power creep"?

Serious questions, not trolling.

Let's take a look at Natural Explorer:

Natural Explorer​

Also at 1st level, you are particularly familiar with one type of natural environment and are adept at traveling and surviving in such regions. Choose one type of favored terrain: arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, swamp, or the Underdark. When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check related to your favored terrain, your proficiency bonus is doubled if you are using a skill that you’re proficient in.

While traveling for an hour or more in your favored terrain, you gain the following benefits:

• Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
• Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
• Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
• If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
• When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
• While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.

So if you happen to end up in your favored terrain, you have expertise on all Int and Wis checks, you acquire double food, and can't get lost. That pretty much means the Ranger says "nope, no problems here", and it's only a "ribbon" ability. So the DM could be like "you spend a week to cross the hills" and the players are like "oh we have a Ranger, so we ignore the hilly terrain, so it's only 3 days right?"

 

[Neonchameleon]

Power creep as in raising the floor (ways to bring up under performing archetypes) is something I consider valuable. Power creep that raises the ceiling (making powerful archetypes more powerful) not so much. I would generally prefer revision of underperforming archetypes, but that is really difficult in a tabletop environment.

This.

There are four meaningful issues that can all be considered power creep and IMO two are non-toxic, one can be, and one is.

1. Any supplemental material that means you can do anything better than before. Which is literally any supplemental material that isn't strictly worse than previous options. This is non-toxic and good as it makes more viable options.
2. Any supplemental material that does approximately the same thing as previous weak options but better although it doesn't overshadow the strongest options. E.g. the Tasha's Beastmaster subclass is not an escort mission in a subclass unlike the PHB Beastmaster or the terrible Undying pact warlock being largely replaced by the good but not OP undead pact. This is also a good thing as it makes more viable options.
3. Anything that overshadows the previous strong options. For example the Chronurgist overshadows the Diviner and the Diviner was already possibly be th we strongest subclass of possibly the strongest class in the game. This is definite power creep and toxic. (See also: Toll the Dead)
4. A buff to everyone - for example the Dragonlance UA giving everyone an extra feat from a short list of bad feats at level one and another from a longer list of decent but not top tier feats at level 4. This is probably non-toxic as it keeps balance between PCs but may frustrate the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

Smaug could not defeat Smug.

Doesn't seem so hard to defeat.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't think I did ignore anything you wrote- I told you exactly what my opinion was.

But to answer your question(s).
1. Power is not the same as versatility.

2. You are attaching a normative value ("good") to the "adding things" which result in an "increase in power[.]"
-When you say something vaguely, you can't answer it properly. Anything can be "good" or "bad" depending on how it is specified. For example, imagine a D&D game that is released with 6 classes. Five of the classes are roughly equivalent in power, and one of them is woefully underpowered. After a few years, they release a revised version of the sixth class that does nothing more than match the power of the other five. Is that an increase in power? Yes. But that's not how most people think of power creep. Again, if you are using the term in a different way (or narrowly applying it to a single change, which is somewhat different than "creep"), then it's difficult to discuss given how most people define the term.

3. " If yes, then a further question: does the term "power creep" refer to these changes as well as changes where the addition is a bad thing?"

Are you not similarly attaching a normative value—"bad"—to changes by calling them power creep and saying things like "So no- I don't like power creep very much" and "I prefer to keep that away for as long as possible"? This is why I asked the questions I did. I am trying to determine whether you believe ALL changes are something "you don't like very much" and to be kept "away for as long as possible," or if you are willing to accept some forms of change (that result in greater power and/or greater versatility) as being worthwhile ("good.") I tried to keep my questions simple and unburdened with specificity and verbiage because I know you dislike my usual style of posting. Here you see exactly why I don't do that normally. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

And I'm aware that power and versatility are not identical. That's why I asked about both, instead of only asking about power. Because change does not always mean greater or lesser power, just new power.