D&D General Is power creep bad?

[James Gasik]

They're not the worst, but it does feel like what they latch onto and find interesting is rather...unpredictable.

 

[Reynard]

Indeed. That's not my standard for passive. You'll note how I compared e.g. robbing the dragon's (actually hydra's in that case) cave after it had passed as an active event to hiding until the dragon flew past as a passive one. We didn't roll initiative for the hydra either because it wasn't there - which was the point.

Your accusation that i was listing "passive" events makes no sense -- or, at least, it makes a lot of assumptions based on what you want me to have said. In any case, the main reason travel isn't passive is because the players decide where to go and what to do on the road.

 

[Lanefan]

Or not allow teleportation because it is boring and boring is by definition the antithesis of fun.

Or allow teleportation but make it risky and-or less reliable.

 

[Scott Christian]

That seems to me to be a strongly stated argument in favour of power creep. The DM shouldn't be writing the story - the story should be about the PCs and their actions and choices.

Of course the players help write the story. But if power creep removes large swaths, then it can be a hinderance - for both DM and player. For example, take the exploration pillar. Skill creep makes anything other than Very Hard or Nearly Impossible the only two viable options for a say, a chest that needs unlocking. Why would (or how would) 99% of the chests owned by (fill in the blank for creature) have a chest that difficult. They wouldn't. Another example would be natural terrain. By eighth or sixth and sometimes even fourth level, most of it is meaningless.

This isn't necessarily a knock, but looking heroic, which is often what the players want their character's to do, immediately starts to look mundane.

 

[Scott Christian]

Not really.

“Restrictions breed creativity” applies to the DM as well as the players. How they react to the players’ power lets them decide how their plot actually functions in their game.

I agree, restrictions do breed creativity. Rush always said so, so it must be true. That said, in D&D's system, it sometimes makes heroic things appear commonplace - for good and bad.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

One could - but given that the players have an infinitessimal range of options compared to the DM I don't consider this much of a problem unless we get full 3.5 wizards back.

If power creep for players is based on an "infinitessimal range of options compared to the DM", why do some get so concerned about it? Is it a reaction to past edition pain?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Of course the players help write the story. But if power creep removes large swaths, then it can be a hinderance - for both DM and player. For example, take the exploration pillar. Skill creep makes anything other than Very Hard or Nearly Impossible the only two viable options for a say, a chest that needs unlocking. Why would (or how would) 99% of the chests owned by (fill in the blank for creature) have a chest that difficult. They wouldn't. Another example would be natural terrain. By eighth or sixth and sometimes even fourth level, most of it is meaningless.

This isn't necessarily a knock, but looking heroic, which is often what the players want their character's to do, immediately starts to look mundane.

I see what you did there... knock... the ultimate in power creep when faced with locks!

 

[billd91]

If power creep for players is based on an "infinitessimal range of options compared to the DM", why do some get so concerned about it? Is it a reaction to past edition pain?

In some cases? Maybe, if a power creep issue was a bad experience. Clerics benefited from massive power creep across 3.5e’s existence and while some of the new options were nice (like feats that let you use turning for other things), certain magic items appeared (nightsticks) that blew the roof even farther off that dump. A lot of new spells also added to the power creep. And with druid wildshaping, some monsters in later books were much better options than when the power first appeared. Both of those represented major power creep within the same edition. And for those who played AD&D, several factors added together to give spellcasters MASSIVE power creep in 3.5 compared to previous editions that really messed with people’s conceptions coming from one edition to another.

The main problem with power creep within an edition, I think, is how it affects previous options. If it improves one’s that we’re deficient, it‘s fine. But you really don’t want later options dominating prior ones that were entirely reasonable. That’s just not good design.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Sure but if you're in the trenches running a game and a player comes to you with a new build, and you're building encounters correctly and using monster manual critters and suddenly you realize that this guy is doing more damage, taking less damage, and seems to have no particular weaknesses, it's ok to be like "now...hold on a minute!".

I don't know. Unless somebody is using some totally crazy 3rd party content, no official options are going to move the needle all that much. One character is doing more damage and taking less damage, and the fight is easier than I expected? Ok, no worries...the next encounter is a little bit harder.

I'm not necessarily arguing for power creep, but I also just don't think it's that big of a deal for this particular reason.

My only real complaint with power creep is of the sort in which new options are strictly superior to older options, both because those options tend to stop being used and because people who have invested in those options feel short-changed.

So I guess I like power creep if means the average is being raised, by improving weak options, without raising the top end.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So I guess I like power creep if means the average is being raised, by improving weak options, without raising the top end.

While I won't go far as to say I like it, this sort of power creep is good if it corrects prior imbalances. Unfortunately, that is most often NOT the case.

It does create a lot of "I will never do / take X because the new Y is simply superior". Take Prodigy (Xanathar's) vs. Skill Expert (Tasha's):

Prodigy:

• Gain a skill, tool, and language proficiency.
• Gain expertise in a skill.

Tasha's:

• Gain a skill proficiency.
• Gain expertise in a skill.
• Gain a +1 ASI to any ability.

Honestly, unless it really fits your concept, who is going to take a tool and language proficiency over a +1 to any ability???

Skill Expert would have at least been a bit more balanced if the ASI you gained HAD to be in the ability linked to the skill you gain and the expertise also had to be in that skill. Then the restrictions would have balanced the power nicely IMO, but of course we know players of 5E can't have restrictions according to WotC! Perish the thought!!

Now, yes, Prodigy is a racial feat for humans, half-elves, and half-orcs, but no group IME ever bothered to enforce that restriction--it is just silly IMO.