D&D General Is power creep bad?

[Neonchameleon]

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???

And we can track that back to Skilled in the PHB: gain training in any three skills.

The problem is that Skilled is such a weak feat that no one takes it without realising that they are weakening themselves. Who'd take Skilled when Prodigy was on the table unless it really fit their concept?

The thing is there's an imbalance here. And Tasha's fixes it. Skill Expert is a useful feat that a non-trivial number of characters will take. In short it actually does correct prior imbalances - with the prior imbalance being that no one is going to take skilled (or for that matter prodigy) unless it really fits their concept.

Also the value of a +1 depends on whether and where you have odd numbered stats. If your three major stats (prime stat, dex, con normally) are all even then the +1 might not be worth much.

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!!

Skill Expert wasn't intended to be balanced against Skilled (or even Skill Prodigy). Balancing something new against utter crap means that you end up with utter crap that isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Skill Expert was intended to be balanced against e.g Resilient, Actor, Observant, or Heavy Armour Master or other feats that a reasonable number of people took.

So yes I'd say you've picked a feat that corrects a prior imbalance. With the imbalance being that Skilled was terrible.

 

[DND_Reborn]

And we can track that back to Skilled in the PHB: gain training in any three skills.

The problem is that Skilled is such a weak feat that no one takes it without realising that they are weakening themselves. Who'd take Skilled when Prodigy was on the table unless it really fit their concept?

I totally disagree (again, right? LOL!). I have taken Skilled for multiple PCs in the last four years. Prodigy is great for a single skill, but gaining more skills can be very useful. BOTH serve a purpose in different concepts well. Fighters take Prodigy for Athletics, casters for Arcana, and so on. While Skilled is not taken as much, I still see it in use, especially at mid and higher levels, depending on the build.

The thing is there's an imbalance here. And Tasha's fixes it. Skill Expert is a useful feat that a non-trivial number of characters will take. In short it actually does correct prior imbalances - with the prior imbalance being that no one is going to take skilled (or for that matter prodigy) unless it really fits their concept.

No, Tasha's does not fix imbalance, it creates it as I have shown.

Skilled is still viable for characters who want more skills since they are generally considered more useful than languages or tools, but the difference between Skill Expert and Prodigy makes it so Prodigy will very rarely (if ever) take precedence IMO. To most players, the ASI is too important combined with expertise and a skill proficiency.

Also the value of a +1 depends on whether and where you have odd numbered stats. If your three major stats (prime stat, dex, con normally) are all even then the +1 might not be worth much.

No it doesn't depend on the ability being odd. Yes, that helps for immediate benefit, but otherwise it serves to move the bonus closer to improvement, which can be accomplished at the next ASI. And in the case where it is odd, you can use it to bump a major stat or a minor one, which means it is versatile compared to the half-feats which specify particular increases. After all, few feats allow completely "open" ASI increase choices. Making Skill Expert even more powerful IMO.

Skill Expert wasn't intended to be balanced against Skilled (or even Skill Prodigy). Balancing something new against utter crap means that you end up with utter crap that isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Skill Expert was intended to be balanced against e.g Resilient, Actor, Observant, or Heavy Armour Master or other feats that a reasonable number of people took.

Considering Prodigy is also the only feat which grants expertise, Skill Expert should have been balanced against it or it makes it obsolete. Which is precisely what the "bad" sort of power creep does. Skilled and Prodigy were hardly crap feats and taken often, especially Prodigy, IME. YMMV, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that Skill Expert makes Prodigy irrelevant except in that rare case when a PC wants an extra language and tool proficiency...

So yes I'd say you've picked a feat that corrects a prior imbalance. With the imbalance being that Skilled was terrible.

Then you would be wrong IMO. Skill Expert means you can pretty much throw Prodigy out the window in most cases and players who took Prodigy before feel gimped compared to those who want to take Skill Expert now. Skilled has little to do with it as it serves a different and still very viable role.

You have said everything wrong as I see it and tried to use my example against me unsuccessfully. You won't convince me otherwise, and I have made my points clearly. And so...

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah but WotC can't really mess up on Feats. They're optional content. Used at one's own risk, just like magic items.

Until that changes, printing a Feat that's better or worse than another Feat when you don't have to include either is moot, right?

Now if they print a weapon that's better than the Greatsword, or a spell that's better than Fireball, that's legitimate power creep...right?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah but WotC can't really mess up on Feats. They're optional content. Used at one's own risk, just like magic items.

Until that changes, printing a Feat that's better or worse than another Feat when you don't have to include either is moot, right?

Yes, that is an excellent point, but something like 90+% of tables do use feats. I've never encountered one IRL that doesn't use feats, but I know some posters here have said they don't.

So, if the vast majority of groups use content that is optional, I think it should be better balanced...

Anyway, it is simple enough to not use, which is why most of Tasha's isn't used in my group.

Now if they print a weapon that's better than the Greatsword, or a spell that's better than Fireball, that's legitimate power creep...right?

While I would still content the new feats are still "legitimate" power creep, those would be as well, sure.

It goes back to issues from before--having new material improve lackluster content is one thing, but making that prior content virtually obsolete is not good design IMO.

Finally, I know not everything can be perfectly balanced, but things could be better. Making changes to the new cleric subclasses to tone them down, putting restrictions on the ASI for Skill Expert, etc. would help and you would not see nearly as many people complaining about power creep...

 

[Neonchameleon]

I totally disagree (again, right? LOL!). I have taken Skilled for multiple PCs in the last four years. Prodigy is great for a single skill, but gaining more skills can be very useful. BOTH serve a purpose in different concepts well. Fighters take Prodigy for Athletics, casters for Arcana, and so on. While Skilled is not taken as much, I still see it in use, especially at mid and higher levels, depending on the build.


No, Tasha's does not fix imbalance, it creates it as I have shown.

The problem is that literally the only thing you have shown is your house rules; Prodigy is a racial feat - but we'll go with your math. And as I have shown a lot of characters don't actually need that +1 or get that much out of it. Remember the standard array has four even numbered stats and the standard racial pack has a +1 so your average character only has one odd numbered stat. So that +1 is in reality not actually that useful except in relative niche cases as most characters built with a standard array have only one odd stat.

If you are making the IME extremely counter-factual claim that Skilled is a decently powered feat because it adds such a breadth of skills then Skill Expert only adds one single skill. If on the other hand you take the more normal approach that a strong focus is important then Expertise >> a single skill. Which means that you're comparing a language and a tool proficiency with less than a single skill. And tool proficiencies and language are each worth more than half a skill. Prodigy > Skilled and this is where the imbalance lies. (And thieves tools, for example are worth a full skill).

Meanwhile if you take the IMO counter-factual approach that an Expertise is worth less than a skill then Skill Expert is not imbalanced and we can check this mathematically by comparing 2 x skill expert with Skilled + an ASI. The ASI provides two stat points which exactly match the two stat points from the double skill expert. The two skills from Skill Expert are matched with two of the three skills from Skilled. All of which leaves two Expertises up against one skill.

So yes Skill Expert is more efficient than skilled. But how much? If an Expertise < an extra skill then it's pretty close to balanced and the power creep is minimal (and IMO needed). Less than half a skill on a feat which is in the "Don't sweat the small stuff" range because there isn't a tweak that could be made to Skill Expert to balance it with Skilled. If an Expertise > an extra skill then Prodigy is broken compared to Skilled.

So if Skill Expert was broken with respect to Skilled then so is Prodigy. If Prodigy is fine with respect to Skilled then so is Skill Expert.

Skilled is still viable for characters who want more skills since they are generally considered more useful than languages or tools, but the difference between Skill Expert and Prodigy makes it so Prodigy will very rarely (if ever) take precedence IMO. To most players, the ASI is too important combined with expertise and a skill proficiency.

To most players the ASI is too important - so they will not pick up Skilled or Skill Expert. They'll pick up a full ASI. This is unquestionable. And the players picking skilled are picking it not because it is good (it isn't and is rated as consistently bad) but because without house ruling before Skill Expert it was the only game in town - and even with Skill Expert breadth is a thing.

But if it's breadth that interests you I'd argue thatProdigy (which affects four areas) provides more than Skilled (which affects three).

No it doesn't depend on the ability being odd. Yes, that helps for immediate benefit, but otherwise it serves to move the bonus closer to improvement, which can be accomplished at the next ASI.

90% of all games end at or before 10. Which means that about 90% of characters only ever get two or fewer feats. Given that PCs are meant to race through levels 1 and 2 "the next feat" is literally half the lifetime of a character away. If we're not talking abstract theorycraft this is pretty much irrelevant for normal groups in normal play.

Considering Prodigy is also the only feat which grants expertise, Skill Expert should have been balanced against it or it makes it obsolete.

Considering Prodigy is explicitly for humans, half-elves, and half-orcs only then this is barely relevant.

Which is precisely what the "bad" sort of power creep does. Skilled and Prodigy were hardly crap feats and taken often, especially Prodigy, IME.

You had to house rule Prodigy. And Skilled is generally considered a low tier feat. Skill Expert is emphatically not considered a top tier feat.

This is the good sort of power creep. Replacing something low tier with something more useful that isn't overwhelmingly powerful.

Then you would be wrong IMO. Skill Expert means you can pretty much throw Prodigy out the window in most cases

And very little of value is lost. Skill Expert is no Lucky and is hardly tearing up the community. And Prodigy is a poorly written feat given that it needs house ruling for most races.

You have said everything wrong as I see it and tried to use my example against me unsuccessfully. You won't convince me otherwise, and I have made my points clearly. And so...

You are making fallacy after fallacy and misjudgement after misjudgemnet right down to pretending the entire game follows your own house rules. Pointing out that you aren't open to convincement after posting such obvious and easy to rebut nonsense says more about you and how deeply you examine your own arguments than anything else.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah but WotC can't really mess up on Feats. They're optional content. Used at one's own risk, just like magic items.

Until that changes, printing a Feat that's better or worse than another Feat when you don't have to include either is moot, right?

Now if they print a weapon that's better than the Greatsword, or a spell that's better than Fireball, that's legitimate power creep...right?

Everything in every book is optional, but the core rules are of course usually considered automatically accepted. But if a sword better than the great sword showed up in Tasha's 2 or whatever, it is no more automically allowed than a feat is. The group makes a decision about what new stuff, official or otherwise, is allowed, with the GM having final say.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The problem is that literally the only thing you have shown is your house rules; Prodigy is a racial feat - but we'll go with your math. And as I have shown a lot of characters don't actually need that +1 or get that much out of it. Remember the standard array has four even numbered stats and the standard racial pack has a +1 so your average character only has one odd numbered stat. So that +1 is in reality not actually that useful except in relative niche cases as most characters built with a standard array have only one odd stat.

We house-ruled it because it is nonsense to have it for only three races...

And the highest score of the Standard Array is 15, so a +1 to that is very useful.

If you are making the IME extremely counter-factual claim that Skilled is a decently powered feat because it adds such a breadth of skills then Skill Expert only adds one single skill. If on the other hand you take the more normal approach that a strong focus is important then Expertise >> a single skill. Which means that you're comparing a language and a tool proficiency with less than a single skill. And tool proficiencies and language are each worth more than half a skill. Prodigy > Skilled and this is where the imbalance lies. (And thieves tools, for example are worth a full skill).

You brought Skilled into this discussion. I was merely talking about Prodigy and Skill Expert --- both of which give a skill proficiency and expertise. But one offer a language and tool while the other offers a much more valuable ASI.

So if Skill Expert was broken with respect to Skilled then so is Prodigy. If Prodigy is fine with respect to Skilled then so is Skill Expert.

Again, not talking about Skilled. You are. To me, the power creep is bad because it makes Prodigy obsolete compared to Skill Expert. That was my point.

To most players the ASI is too important - so they will not pick up Skilled or Skill Expert. They'll pick up a full ASI. This is unquestionable. And the players picking skilled are picking it not because it is good (it isn't and is rated as consistently bad) but because without house ruling before Skill Expert it was the only game in town - and even with Skill Expert breadth is a thing.

LOL it is VERY questionable! Look at all the threads about ASIs and if an 18 is really needed over a 16 or a 16 needed over a 14. I hardly ever use ASIs for +2 ASI and 95% of the time IME players pick feats. 16 you can start with and is good enough for most players to make their characters effective. The power/depth/versatility of feats far outweigh ASIs more often than not.

But if it's breadth that interests you I'd argue thatProdigy (which affects four areas) provides more than Skilled (which affects three).

Man, you are obsessed with Skilled...

Two of the areas Prodigy affects are languages and tools, each considered inferior to skills in general and weighed at half a skill each makes them equivalent feats really.

90% of all games end at or before 10. Which means that about 90% of characters only ever get two or fewer feats. Given that PCs are meant to race through levels 1 and 2 "the next feat" is literally half the lifetime of a character away. If we're not talking abstract theorycraft this is pretty much irrelevant for normal groups in normal play.

And most games also grant a bonus feat at 1st level, which is why WotC took that clue and is bringing it into the mainstream of the game.

Considering Prodigy is explicitly for humans, half-elves, and half-orcs only then this is barely relevant.

Except limiting it to those races for no real reason is a design flaw on WotC's part. What? They are saying it is impossible for a Dwarf, Gnome, or Dragonborn to be a prodigy? Makes no sense.

You had to house rule Prodigy. And Skilled is generally considered a low tier feat. Skill Expert is emphatically not considered a top tier feat.

Skilled, skilled, skilled... oi.

Who says Skill Expert is not a top tier feat? You get an ASI, a skill, AND expertise? That is awesome.

This is the good sort of power creep. Replacing something low tier with something more useful that isn't overwhelmingly powerful.

Making prior content obsolete is not good power creep. When a feat becomes that good, people will take it often. Even combat-oriented min-maxers will love it! Fighter gets Athletics or Acrobatics, with Expertise, and +1 to STR or DEX??? Holy crap that is great!

And very little of value is lost. Skill Expert is no Lucky and is hardly tearing up the community. And Prodigy is a poorly written feat given that it needs house ruling for most races.

Other than the racial prerequisites, Prodigy is also a great feat, although not as strong as Skill Expert of course.

If others don't recognize the power of Skill Expert, I can hardly help that. Regardless, it is superior 99% of the time to Prodigy.

You are making fallacy after fallacy and misjudgement after misjudgemnet right down to pretending the entire game follows your own house rules. Pointing out that you aren't open to convincement after posting such obvious and easy to rebut nonsense says more about you and how deeply you examine your own arguments than anything else.

And you are not willing to face the facts about how these two feats measure up. We've butted heads before again and again, I've tried to be civil but I know you never listen. I am tired of arguing with you. You won't convince me--I won't convince you. Good-bye.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Everything in every book is optional, but the core rules are of course usually considered automatically accepted.

Not if you go off how people discuss it on this forum...but perhaps this is a "vocal minority" issue?

But if a sword better than the great sword showed up in Tasha's 2 or whatever, it is no more automically allowed than a feat is. The group makes a decision about what new stuff, official or otherwise, is allowed, with the GM having final say.

Well, I personally think they absolutely should make a Trident Mk. II, because the trident we have is worthless garbage.

But then again I'm also of the opinion that weapons should've had keywords like they did in 4e, because that made weapon groups actually interesting.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But then again I'm also of the opinion that weapons should've had keywords like they did in 4e, because that made weapon groups actually interesting.

Keywords on their own don't do much. They only were interesting because they keyed off powers - and 5e at launch had a commitment to not having that level of customisation.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm just saying, complaining about a Feat should be analogous to complaining about the Broom of Flying. Both are specifically optional, so less attention is paid to their balance, you're on your own if you want to use them.

Contrast and compare a balance discussion about a new subclass or spell, which don't require an optional ruleset to employ, and one would hope, are more rigorously playtested (whether they are or not, well...that's why we have discussions about them).