Poll: Power creep in 3.5, how significant?

[Nifft]

Actually, that is not true! As you can read here (that's an article by Mark Rosewater, the Head Designer), they're very aware of the problem of "Power Creep" and while they know that's an incentive, they also try to keep it in check to lengthen the life duration of the game.

It's probably going to happen anyway naturally, so it's very heartening to hear that someone is at least trying to keep it at a slow burn.

Thanks, -- N

 

[brehobit]

Ironically, I think those last two do NOT particularly contribute to power creep. Not nearly so much as the various setting books did.

Complete Mage? Not quite sure. Gotta give that one a harder look.

Cheers, -- N

The Bo9S, where an 8th level rogue is better off taking a level of swordsage (for +2d6) backstab, a fireball 1/combat, weapon focus in a self-selected set of weapons, and +2 to reflex and will saves than a level of rogue (and odd levels are generally the good ones for rogues).

I'm just saying that Bo9S, is IMO, the worst of the group. Complete Scoundrel appears to be competitive (especially when combined with Bo9S).

Mark

 

[Nifft]

The Bo9S, where an 8th level rogue is better off taking a level of swordsage (for +2d6) backstab, a fireball 1/combat, weapon focus in a self-selected set of weapons, and +2 to reflex and will saves than a level of rogue (and odd levels are generally the good ones for rogues).

We could fork a discussion about how 1st levels are "overpowered" -- one level of Barbarian or Ranger would also be "better", IMHO, especially Barbarian.

The thing is: the Rogue's going to lose out on his UMD and trapmonkey skills. Same as if he took a level of Ranger (+1 BAB, +2 Fort / +2 Reflex, free feat, +2 to damage, bluff, and more vs. Favored Enemy, gets ALL martial weapons).

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that the front-loaded base class is neither new nor uncommon.

Thanks, -- N

 

[greywulf]

I answered "Nearly none, while there will be small differences, they are minor." because it's a closest match to what I think

Depending on your style of play, some of the new classes and options are significantly more powerful than the base classes from core. The number of these though is minor, and easily fixed - don't use 'em.

Bo9S is definitely aimed at the higher end of the scale; if you're going to be using this then it's likely your entire campaign is going to increase a notch. I'd say that book is either all-or-nothing. If you use it, you're buying into it's high-power level, which is good. Try to mix it with "classic" D&D and you're rolling for a fall.

PHBII is another case in point. While Duskblades are powerful uber-sorcerers, the Beguiler ("he lies and casts spells. oo!") and Knight ("hit me! hit me!") are underpowered. IMHO, of course. Your mileage may vary. I do allow Duskblades into the game but they're on a cautious probationary period right now. I love playing one though!

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Ironically, I think those last two do NOT particularly contribute to power creep. Not nearly so much as the various setting books did.

Complete Mage? Not quite sure. Gotta give that one a harder look.

Cheers, -- N

I've been going through Complete Mage for the last week or so, and I haven't found much that's really unbalanced. None of the feats stand out as must-haves, and the prestige classes are all pretty reasonable.

There is one trouble spot, however. The Ultimate Magus has a trick associated with it. Normally, it operates like a Mystic Theurge, leaving you with Level 11 spellcasting in your two classes (typically Wizard and Sorcerer) at character level 15. However, the way the class is worded, there are three levels at which you do not add a spellcasting level to both classes, only to the one with the lowest caster level (which is intended to be the spontaneous casting class). However, if you take Practiced Spellcaster for the spontaneous casting class, you raise its caster level beyond the level of the prepared spellcaster. Using that trick, you can add to the prepared spellcaster class for all 10 levels of the prestige class. In essence, you trade 1 level of wizard for 8 levels of sorcerer. This looks like a problem to me.

Aside from that loophole, which is easily closed once identified, the book looks more or less reasonably balanced.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

PHBII is another case in point. While Duskblades are powerful uber-sorcerers, the Beguiler ("he lies and casts spells. oo!") and Knight ("hit me! hit me!") are underpowered. IMHO, of course. Your mileage may vary. I do allow Duskblades into the game but they're on a cautious probationary period right now. I love playing one though!

You think Duskblades are really that bad? They have such a limited selection of spells they don't make good casters, but are also unable to function in really good armour, until higher levels, when you might get some mithril. They're somewhere on the level of Psychic Warriors, from what I can determine.

 

[WhatGravitas]

One of the factors of the games I play in being core-only is that I'm often astonished by spells and feats that get talked about in the rules forum, and the character 'builds' that are put together around them. Certainly more powerful and capable than most (any?) of our core-only characters!

Actually, I think that most builds are quite impossible in-game, except if the player is bent on it. But this means, the player already tries to optimize his character, which means, he'll even reign supreme in core-only by using a CoDzilla (C = Cleric, D = Druid) build - because Natural Spell equals a hulking, flesh-rending, and spell-hurling beast.

 

[Aaron L]

You think Duskblades are really that bad? They have such a limited selection of spells they don't make good casters, but are also unable to function in really good armour, until higher levels, when you might get some mithril. They're somewhere on the level of Psychic Warriors, from what I can determine.

I'm currently playing a Duskblade and that's excactly how they play out.

The straight class Fighter flat-out outdamages me consistently, even when I burn through spells. This is at 9th level.

Uber-Sorcerers? Hardly. The ability to cast an extremely limited selection of spells lot of times per day hardly makes for an overly powerful class.

I voted #3, a bit. Just as James Jacobs said, more books = more options and more ability to specialize your characters, making them more powerful in specific situations.

And of course with random people coming in to write books you're going to get some with poor judgment who make wonky spells and feats. (and even entire books... of nine swords...)

 

[Stalker0]

I think its less power creep then it is helping some archetypes catch up.

The PHB II reallys help high level fighter types compete against spellcasters, which I think is a good thing. However, I think the BO9S takes it too far and actually causes power creep. I like the concepts of BO9S a lot, I just don't think they belong in the same game as the core classes.

Many things have been done to make multiclassing builds (like a monk/fighter or a wizard/fighter) more viable. Somethings like wraithstrike I think went overboard, but again for the most part its fine.

I think WOTC has woken up to the fact that many of the feats in the core just plain suck. There are some core feats people take time and time again, and others are left in the cold. When you compare some of the complete feats to some of the core feats, at first glance you can see power creep. However, when you compare those complete feats to the real winners of the core phb, then it looks more balanced.

I think the spell compendium does show marked power creep for casters. There are spells in there that blow my mind.

As usual, I think Prcs always give power creep. Most of the new base classes I've seen look pretty balanced though.

 

[werk]

I voted 'a bit' but not necessarily MORE POWERFUL but mostly just more versatile or more specific.

Not everything equates into more or less POWER.