Baldurs_Underdark
Hero
d) introduce new options which are stronger than existing ones in some fields, while being weaker in others, and on average approach roughly the existing options.
D&D General Is power creep bad?
delericho
Legend
Possibly. That, and that they have the most in the PHB.
However, adding subclasses isn't the only new option that can be added to a class - indeed, since you can only ever have one subclass, it's one of the less significant. For full casters, in particular, adding new spells is a key source of power creep, and WotC haven't exactly been shy about adding those.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Even (c) isn't a magic bullet, because of the intense antipathy for adding certain kinds of genuinely distinct content to the game. There's a vocal minority with a burning, passionate opposition to adding new classes, for example, despite classes being one of the better vehicles for adding legitimately distinct methods or approaches in play.
But, as noted, I think this is conflating "any change ever that adds (good) stuff" with "power creep." Some increases in power or versatility can be positive, and people use "power creep" pretty clearly as a pejorative.
Power creep is only an issue if the table you're playing at thinks its an issue.
In practice over the decades I've found power creep to be more of a problem in the abstract than actually in play at the table.
I find complexity creep to be more of a problem than power creep. Adding new mechanics to the game bringing more complexity and eventually having the game collapse under its own weight. For example, 3e's expansions IMO suffered far more from complexity creep than power creep in my actual play experience at the table.
In practice over the decades I've found power creep to be more of a problem in the abstract than actually in play at the table.
I find complexity creep to be more of a problem than power creep. Adding new mechanics to the game bringing more complexity and eventually having the game collapse under its own weight. For example, 3e's expansions IMO suffered far more from complexity creep than power creep in my actual play experience at the table.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Yeah, I was gonna say, casters actually have several axes on which they can manifest power creep, and one—spells—gets dramatically less criticism than any other axis regardless of class/archetype affected. Spells are, in fact, the largest form of (legit, actual) power creep in 5e.
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
If a new option has any aspect to it that's stronger than a currently existing option, than it's almost certainly power creep, because that strength can be leveraged into combinations with other feats/races/magic items/etc. to exceed current boundaries.
Nah, there's a pretty clear line between Stone Temple Pilots and Radiohead. It was more that they both have a song with the same name that lends itself well to this topic.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
True, but spells are cool and usually belong to multiple classes (even if wizards usually get access to nearly all of them).
And even if you're right about how not important new subclasses are, clearly WotC disagrees. There are many, many possible wizard subclasses that don't exist "officially" because WotC is using number of subclasses as a power metric.
This man, he gets it.
delericho
Legend
That's not entirely true. Monsters and adventures created later in the edition are built assuming PCs built using the same vintage of rules sources - including any power creep that has occurred.
Meaning that a group new to the game, who have wisely decided to start with the core rules, are liable to get a nasty shock when they come up against these things. This was particularly evident with the late-3e Adventure Paths in Dungeon magazine, which were really quite lethal for Core Rules-only PCs.
Similar Threads
- Poll
- Poll
