Power-creep Inevitable, But is that Bad?

[Verdande]

No, power creep is not inevitable, so long as intelligent - and ethical - design and development, solid playtesting, and good editing are the guiding forces.

Ethical? Is poor design, playtesting, and editing actually unethical?


Quibbles aside, I think that power creep is certainly an issue, which is a large part of why I don't really enjoy 3.xE as much as I used to. Everybody's trying to make the best "build" instead of play a game with their buddies, and it's just not the way I like to play.

Power creep isn't caused by player options, it's caused by a broken system. I don't want to get too hostile, or get in an argument, but it's probably self-evident that the better the system, the less of a chance of abuse, of which power creep is a pretty good example.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Truth be told, power creep is only an issue if the DM is a wuss or the players prefer to win than be challenged. Or at least that is how I see it. For everyone else, you just use the banhammer.

Power creep, for me anyway, is also an issue when a new character can be made that can do more than 1 of the basic jobs in the party better than the original person could do it themselves.

Case in point. In 3.5 by the end of the Age of Worms in our party my sorcerer/elemental adept(earth) was a MUCH MUCH better scout than the rouge/shadowdancer. At the same time the warlock was a MUCH MUCH better detrapper than the rogue/shadowdancer. The rogue was stripped of two of his primary jobs by the fact that characters created later stepped on his toes.

The problem with the power creep is that if the older designs don't have access to the snazzy newer powers they tend to get left behind.

DS

 

[MichaelSomething]

You also have to considered underpowered splat. Not every thing made is strictly more powerful then core.

 

[Crothian]

There seems to me to be two types of powercreep. The first and the most common is the one that is just more powerful then something in the core. Like a feat that gives +3 to something in the core, and a book that has a feat that gives +5 to the same thing for no additional cost.

THe other type of power creep seems to be the item that by itself is fine, but when combined with A and B becomes a problem,

The first can be guarded against, the second I see as much less a problem.

 

[Zsig]

I think Cadfan actually nailed it down on his thread.

Basicly, there's a lot of stuff missing from the PHB, stuff that needs to be addressed no matter what, stuff that might be more powerful or not, doesn't matter.

I mean, I'm almost sure we can expect a Charisma Feat for Paladins on Divine Power next year. Is it power-creep? I wouldn't say so. It's a gap that needs to be filled.

Just because it couldn't make it to the PHB (for not being something "essential" to play your character concept, or for lack of space, etc) doesn't mean they didn't think about it and are not planning on supporting it later.

If you stay only with the basic books you'll be missing alot.

 

[Glyfair]

There seems to me to be two types of powercreep. The first and the most common is the one that is just more powerful then something in the core. Like a feat that gives +3 to something in the core, and a book that has a feat that gives +5 to the same thing for no additional cost.

THe other type of power creep seems to be the item that by itself is fine, but when combined with A and B becomes a problem,

The first can be guarded against, the second I see as much less a problem.

There is a third type I've seen referenced. It is the thing which gives additional power to all characters. The FR Regional benefits is one example (and I believe a recent Dragon article had a similar example).

Everyone gets an ability and thus are more powerful. I've seen the idea criticized as "power creep." I have no problem with that myself and as long as the powers are relatively balanced (which rarely happen perfectly), I find that sort fine.

 

[Stalker0]

Everyone gets an ability and thus are more powerful. I've seen the idea criticized as "power creep." I have no problem with that myself and as long as the powers are relatively balanced (which rarely happen perfectly), I find that sort fine.

I agree that this is power creep I can accept, since it just requires the DM to use slightly higher encounters.

To me, the biggest issue with power creep is it tends to help people with more rules knowledge than it helps others. And if one player is dominate over the others, it can frustrate some people.

 

[blargney the second]

In 3.5 by the end of the Age of Worms in our party my sorcerer/elemental adept(earth) was a MUCH MUCH better scout than the rouge/shadowdancer. At the same time the warlock was a MUCH MUCH better detrapper than the rogue/shadowdancer. The rogue was stripped of two of his primary jobs by the fact that characters created later stepped on his toes.

That's not a function of power creep. That's just what magic does to rogues in 3.5.
-blarg

 

[Pierson_Lowgal]

Yes, I worry about power creep. Balance between party members and balance between PC's and adversaries is important, and power creep can imbalance both.

When new books for a system are published, they should expand the game outward, meaning more and different options, rather than expansion upward, meaning more power. The modular or exception based design of 4th edition lends itself to expansion outward. We shall see.

 

[Spatula]

The only way to stop powercreep is to not release any more products.

No, they could release products that don't have clearly mechanically superior options. Just because you're putting out new books, does not mean that those books have to be full of crap that is just plain better than what came before.