Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7724961" data-attributes="member: 4937">Yes, but not for the reasons you necessarily think.   If they come out with a super-wizard class that could do everything a regular wizard does, only better, then that is power creep because if the older game was balanced so that wizard and fighter were viable concepts, then the new super-wizard breaks that balance so that there is now no good reason probably to play a fighter.   But we can offer an alternative situation.  If in the existing situation, wizards are not viable to play because fighters are already so super, then the new super-wizard could potentially not be power creep at all, as the result of the new super-wizard might simply be that for the first time people feel validated in playing a wizard when they could have played a fighter.   In that case, the new super-wizard simply balances the game.The case of the hasted goblin is important for understanding this topic.   If the new hasted goblin causes the average game played by quality decks to finish by turn 3 rather than turn 4, then that is indeed power creep.   The game play has changed, resulting in a shorter game which will depend on fewer more optimized strategies involving only a small number of 'best' cards.  But the new hasted goblin allows goblin decks to finish by the current standard of turn 4 rather than the turn 5 they needed before, that is not power creep.   That's simply increasing the diversity of approaches which meet the games agreed upon standard.   MtG's history of power creep and how WotC both manages it and uses it to sell cards would require a thread all its own.Hopefully, with the clarifications I just made, you can see what this is not at all true.   I'm not at all complaining if now it is viable to play a goblin deck or a wizard, when before those ideas were suboptimal and never part of the 'meta'.   I'm not complaining that wizards or dwarves or what have you should be deliberately suboptimal because that's the way it was always done.   Yes.  Exactly.  That's just what I said.</blockquote>

Verification