D&D General Is power creep bad?

[James Gasik]

But it is not a "game as a whole" -- they are different games. Calling it power creep shoots wide of the point and suggests a kind of continuity of experience and expectations that just doesn't exist.

It's just another way of looking at the problem. Each edition has changes from the last, if a new edition comes out and says "Fighters can now lift mountains", it is indeed a form of power creep, though I do admit, most people think of an edition of D&D as a separate game entirely.

This isn't always true for other games however. Vampire 1e to Vampire 20th anniversary, for example, is all the same game, though each edition makes adjustments to the power level. (an example to WoD heads would be Celerity changes based on edition).

I have no problems with someone saying "how the game was in 3e has no bearing on 5e for a discussion on power creep/seep", if that's how they see it. I was simply trying to explain what I thought Micah Sweet's position was.

 

[James Gasik]

Boy howdy did Pathfinder push the power envelope forward. Even I, who doesn't care much about balance, couldn't play that game. 3.5 was at my upper limit of imbalance.

Wait, what? Pathfinder upped the power level of 3.5? Uh, you're going to have to explain that one to me. What in the world did Paizo publish that reaches Cheater of Mystra Incantatrix Planar Shepherd Weretouched Master Warshaper Spell to Power Erudite Archivist Ubercharger levels of power?

 

[Stoutstien]

It is also worth noting that some of the new subclasses are in fact quite powerful, even for Wizard. Chronurgy and Bladesinging are pretty clearly better than Divination and Abjuration, for example.

I disregard Critical Roll content because it's all over the place and horribly written. I still thought it was semi official as well but they could have changed that.

The bladsinger is good but not obviously better than abjuration, envoker, or even Necro. It's has some neat features but in the end abjuration is tougher and has the ability to share mitigation.

 

[Ondath]

I disregard Critical Roll content because it's all over the place and horribly written. I still thought it was semi official as well but they could have changed that.

The bladsinger is good but not obviously better than abjuration, envoker, or even Necro. It's has some neat features but in the end abjuration is tougher and has the ability to share mitigation.

The moniker "Critical Role content" covers a wide range of things from Mercer's own homebrew which he released over DM's Guild (Blood Hunter, College of Maestro etc.) to content actually co-designed by WotC and published officially (the Wildmount sourcebook and Call of the Netherdeep adventure) and inbetween (the Tal'dorei sourcebook released under Green RoninDarrington Press). I'd say the Wildmount book is the most decent out of all of them (it's the setting book that's the closest to 3E setting books in terms of information density), I never ran the Tal'dorei content though I'd guess it got a bit of playtesting since it's a more serious published book, while the DM's Guild stuff is incredibly hit or miss. I have a Blood Hunter in my ongoing Spelljammer campaign and while everyone was talking about how underpowered the class is, I'm having a hard time keeping him balanced to the rest of the party due to his mutagens allowing him to break bounded accuracy on Dexterity and being completely immune to stunned and restrained conditions (the second mutagen I outright banned because how on Earth am I going to challenge this guy if he has high HP, high Dex and immunity to a bunch of conditions).

All in all, really hit or miss in terms of balance and quality.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Instead of raising the floor, though, why not lower the ceiling?

That way there's no pwer creep yet things still become more balanced.

 

[Lanefan]

Huh.

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

The power creep would here be in comparison to the core books of earlier editions.

For example, any 1st-level 4e or 5e character would almost certainly wipe the floor with a 1st-level 0e or 1e character.

Power creep isn't restricted to only happening within an edition.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Instead of raising the floor, though, why not lower the ceiling?

That way there's no pwer creep yet things still become more balanced.

Because it would piss off millions of fans, instead of pissing off a handful of grumpy old grognards?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because it would piss off millions of fans, instead of pissing off a handful of grumpy old grognards?

To say that in a less insulting way, a lot of people would object to the kind of nerfing you're suggesting. Players generally hate to see their characters become less powerful. You have to work with what we have.

 

[Bill Zebub]

To say that in a less insulting way, a lot of people would object to the kind of nerfing you're suggesting. Players generally hate to see their characters become less powerful. You have to work with what we have.

Yeah sorry that was meant playfully.

I am a grumpy old grognard!

 

[Neonchameleon]

Instead of raising the floor, though, why not lower the ceiling?

That way there's no pwer creep yet things still become more balanced.

Because people hate their existing toys being taken away. It feels bad.