Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7725033" data-attributes="member: 4937">Yes.You are confused.   For my definition to apply, the d8 longsword has to be a viable weapon regularly used by fighters.   In every version of the game, the 'longword' is perhaps the most iconic fighter weapon.   And in 5e in particular, the d8 longsword is already a popular weapon and competitive with the other available weapons in the game.   In fact 5e weapons are very simple in their design and they have a very straight forward set of parameters that govern what is a valid/balanced weapon.  (Let's for now leave off the possibility that the new d8 rapier may in fact be actual power creep, because there are already threads for that.)  It is the case that the d12 longsword is better than the d8 longsword in every meaningful way, and it is the case that a d12 longsword would be power creep, but only because the d8 longsword is actually already a balanced and viable weapon.  If every other weapon in the game had it's current stats, but the longsword did d4 damage instead, so that it was obvious to everyone that the longsword was subpar, then it would not be power creep to change the d4 to a d8.  Suppose the designer of the game made a statement, "We're sorry but the d4 on the longsword was a misprint.  There was an error introduced in the printing process that changed the d8 we had intended to a d4.   We apologize.   As official errata, the longsword should use a d8."   That would not be "power creep" because it did not unbalance a game by the introduction of new content.As point of fact though, your example is rather silly, because it doesn't in the slightest capture how power creep actually tends to happen (except maybe in cases were longswords are playing pieces that are for sale for real money).And as a simple point of fact, your example of the d12 longsword replacing the d8 longsword fits my definition of Power Creep and so is not a counter-example.  For you to offer a counter-example, you have to offer an example of making the game more balanced, increasing gameplay, and otherwise effecting the game in a positive manner and still have people generally recognize that this act of increasing (rather than decreasing) balance is power creep.   But you haven't done that.   Instead you've offered an example of an obviously viable and balanced weapon that people already used, and increased it in power, decreasing the balance of the game rather than increasing it.  (That is to say, not only would the d12 longsword invalidate the d8 longsword, but it would invalidate pretty much every other melee weapon in the game and invalidate pretty much any other approach to melee.)   Of course, it could be possible to offer an example of a hypothetical game where introducing the d12 longsword would not be power creep (although, rebalancing things in response to power creep and over compensating is a common way power creep continues) but 5e would not be that game.How in the world do you think that is in any way a useful rebuttal?   If you are going to accept that as a definition, would you also accept that an increase in power  that did not leave old-content completely worthless except for a few exception was not in fact power creep?     Briefly, MtG deals with power creep by having a continually rotating format.  It either bans/restricts any card that causes power creep in the broader but less accessible (and thus much less played) formats, or it simply ages out the card such that it no longer is part of the game (or both).   MtG deliberately employs power creep as a core marketing strategy and has done so for about 12 years now.   Because the game is so complicated, they can push power level deliberately in narrow areas of the gameplay, and then age out that sector while pushing gameplay in a different area.   If one set proves over aggressive, they can scale back power in the next set while still leaving at least some "chase" cards that are powerful in narrow areas that haven't been recently explored.   The result is a game that is never balanced except within certain narrowly defined metas describing how you should play and what you are expected to play against.</blockquote>

Verification