| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What units are we rating it with? It's hard to just describe.
My biggest problem with creep is more access to natural attacks for PCs. I find it both quite powerful at the levels I actually play (1-12) and I find it really annoying from an RP perspective as such builds tend to be pretty silly.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
My take is that it's not so much that everything new is more powerful, as much as there is so much that is new that some of it is bound to overshadow existing classes, races, spells, items or enchantments in the game.
One thing that is hard to quantify but is easy to see is how difficult it is to fully test the potential synergies as you expand the options available to test. For example, if you have 5 classes and 5 feats, that gives 25 options to test. But if you double that to 10 classes and 10 feats, you don't double the testing, you quadruple it. When you are dealing with a dozens or hundreds of new classes, races, feats, spells, items or enchantments, it's just a matter of time before you inadvertently create a slew of dominating synergies that were not possible to test in any reasonable publishing schedule.
Now I do think some of the new stuff is overpowered on its own, but the real problem is how cleverly people take advantage of the new synergies that the developers did not anticipate.
Plus, it just gets confusing after a while. And it makes it virtually impossible to keep class guides up to date.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "power creep" is a nonsense concept that you have no justification to complain about.
RPG companies have two choices for sustainable business:
1) Create new (editions of) games entirely
2) Create new material for their extant games.
First, I'm not convinced that anything new is necessarily more powerful than it was before--it's a mix of powerful and so weak we don't even talk about it, just like before. Second, even if it was, there's only so much creative space horizontally--at some point you have to go vertical.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "power creep" is a nonsense concept that you have no justification to complain about.
RPG companies have two choices for sustainable business:
1) Create new (editions of) games entirely
2) Create new material for their extant games.
First, I'm not convinced that anything new is necessarily more powerful than it was before--it's a mix of powerful and so weak we don't even talk about it, just like before. Second, even if it was, there's only so much creative space horizontally--at some point you have to go vertical.
I was with you up to the bolded part.
There is no limit to the horizontal either. It is literally limited only by the imagination.
|
What units are we rating it with? It's hard to just describe.
My biggest problem with creep is more access to natural attacks for PCs. I find it both quite powerful at the levels I actually play (1-12) and I find it really annoying from an RP perspective as such builds tend to be pretty silly.
IMO the fault here lies more with how natural attacks work and less with PCs getting them.
I would say that the problem with power creep isn't necessarily that the individual options are better (maybe +10% better), but that the sheer number of options opens up more optimization routes. If you tried to build a character naturally you wouldn't really see any power creep. By this I mean taking your feat, skill and class choices one level at a time based on what makes RP sense rather than building ahead of time.
The problem is, you can't build a character naturally because 3.X systems do not have a way to recover from a bad feat expenditure or class level choice by RAW (with a rare few exceptions). One mistake and BOOM you're saddled with something that made since but sucks for the rest of that character. Sure, it doesn't make RP sense to unlearn something major, but it also doesn't make RP sense that someone has to gain more HP to learn a new level of spells, but there it is.
If the system for feats/traits/class-abilities wasn't tied to level, allowing people to advance by picking up more level-5 options instead of having to become level 6+, then the power creep would probably be less as later authors wouldn't feel like they have to make a more powerful feat to avoid making it impossible to take the feat at all due to the pre-requisite list.
In other words, there is no way to have horizontal character growth without vertical character growth. To get more breadth, the system forces you to advance in depth. As it is now, if you want a new, but relatively minor feature then you must get yourself some more HP/BAB/saves/HD/etc.
Unfortunately, solving these issues would essentially require making a whole new system that bares only passing resemblance to 3.X, and I don't ever see that happening under the Paizo banner.
Design Manager
|
I think creep has been fairly mild all told, especially compared to the old 3.5 days where you had so many classes/feats/PrC's/etc., and there was a literal progression of upwards scaling power, as opposed to a gradual power gain based on increased options. I think that while some classes have gained a small increase in power, you can still build a CRB only character who fits in with a party of characters built using the full range of options and contributes just as much, so things are basically at a level of very mild creep.
Now, there are some pretty wildly OP magic items out there (or if not OP, very underpriced) but even those are still small in number.
There is also some power creep in items. The Furious weapon property is almost a straight upgrade for a barbarian over +1.
See, this is what I was talking about--this is not power creep. This is an example of an item that's good for a Barbarian that isn't in core. There are also lousy items in the same book, are there are not? Are there not good options in Core as well (Keen, Holy, Spell Storing, etc.)?
There are good options being printed. There were good options printed in Core. How is it power creep if good options exist in equal, albeit expanded proportion?
It seems that by the criteria most people are using (not just the fellow I quoted) is that nothing published after Core can be as good or better than Core. That's crazy talk--why would you buy any additional books if nothing could be as good or better than core?
For every Lead Blades, there's an Emblazoned Crest. More options are not power creep, even more good options.
The only power creep in RPGs I've ever personally witnessed was in 4e when, instead of issuing errata to fix old material that did not match the math they had intended, they simply created new feats with exactly identical, but better, functions. That's it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Furious isn't just "good" though. Its better for a Barbarian than core options(how often do you see a barbarian fight without raging?). Its a +2 bonus for +1 cost. Its not a big buff, but it makes them stronger.
Exactly. It's better than core options for the Barbarian, but it's not necessarily better than core options overall. Keen is more powerful than Furious for weapons with 18-20 crit, for example.
Just because a new option makes the Barbarian better does not mean there's power creep. What do you expect them to publish? More +2 to two skill feats?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems that by the criteria most people are using (not just the fellow I quoted) is that nothing published after Core can be as good or better than Core. That's crazy talk--why would you buy any additional books if nothing could be as good or better than core?
And that's part of the criteria that the publishers use as well. It's not crazy talk. It's just the way things are. If it's better than the established power level given by the Core Rulebook, it's power creep. Simple as that. There's a lot of unexplored territory still within that power level though, and that's why people buy new books. It horizontally expands the number of options, rather than vertically expands the power of the options. And you're great mplindustries, but uh...if ay any point you find yourself calling most people crazy, it may be time to re-think your stance =/
---
The amount of power creep is alright, and a bit understandable. The concerns about the natural attacks above are spot on. It's really easy to get a ton of attacks now at low levels. Summoners were an interesting, but flawed, experiment. At the very least, it's still worthwhile to play most of the core classes. Rogue kind of got the shaft in later books, but oh well.
So, a mild power creep seems to be the consensus afther a couple of answers.
Anoother question for anyone interested, besides Summoners what are the most clearl example of power creep afther the CRB?, you know those option that are just plain better than anything in core.
Here's a few examples:
1) barbarians getting access to pounce in the APG
2) witches picking up Ice Tomb in UM
3) the obscene favored class bonuses for spontaneous casters that grants spells known EVERY LEVEL (e. g. human sorcerer)
4) feats that make gimmicky weapons viable (e. g. the whip mastery chain)
5) the qinggong monk
Not all power creep is necessarily bad. #5 is a straight up buff to a class that needs straight up buffing. #4 is cool because maybe fighters will occasionally take EWP (not falcata) more often. But I don't think 1 or 2 were at all necessary and 3 is so bad it gives me a headache.
So, a mild power creep seems to be the consensus afther a couple of answers.
Anoother question for anyone interested, besides Summoners what are the most clearl example of power creep after the CRB?, you know those option that are just plain better than anything in core.
Spell Sunder.
EDIT: Also the Superstition favored class ability. And Destroyer's Blessing. And Courageous/Furious.
Actually can I just say 'Barbarians?'
What units are we rating it with? It's hard to just describe.
My biggest problem with creep is more access to natural attacks for PCs. I find it both quite powerful at the levels I actually play (1-12) and I find it really annoying from an RP perspective as such builds tend to be pretty silly.
IMO the fault here lies more with how natural attacks work and less with PCs getting them.
I would say that the problem with power creep isn't necessarily that the individual options are better (maybe +10% better), but that the sheer number of options opens up more optimization routes. If you tried to build a character naturally you wouldn't really see any power creep. By this I mean taking your feat, skill and class choices one level at a time based on what makes RP sense rather than building ahead of time.
** spoiler omitted **...
Actually, PHB2 introduced a whole system for retraining feats and skills. So, RAW, you weren't saddled with anything if you chose to use that system. But per the core(PHB, DMG, MM) RAW, then yeah.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF power creep hasn't yet reached the stratospheric levels of 3.5, but it's significant enough that it's already bugging the heck out of me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was always confused by what people meant by "power creep" in 3.5, considering the hands-down most powerful things in the system came straight out of the PHB(CoDzilla, Wizards, Clerics, Druids, etc).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having played a lot of different games Path Finder has done good job in keeping power creep in check. There is power creep but it's minimal. I've played game where the core rule book alone is much weaker after a few additional books. In Path Finder you could play a Core Rule Book only character with those that have APG, UM an UC books. There is a slight power difference but not enough to effect game play.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only True Power Creep in Pathfinder of any significant variety is Ninja > Rogue.
The rest is sidegrades or "Still not Wizard/Cleric/Quicken Spell/Flesh to Stone". Nowhere close to the 3.5's "I bought Tome of Battle, everybody remakes their martial characters because they're obsolete now".
Personally I've been fairly impressed with the lack of power creep. Sure there is a bit, but it is nothing like in 3.5 for example (or many other games).
Sure, there are some individual examples which can be cited, but nothing really game breaking. As others have said, if you play a CRB character you will not be eating dust as you would have in 3.5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, because Clerics, Druids, and Wizards were so weak compared to Shadowcasters, Warmages, and True Namers in 3.5
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The argument that "power creep" is not a problem because wizards are still awesome cosmic reality altering magic-slingers is not very compelling.
Clearly clerics, wizards and druids are powerful. But ramping up the power of a barbarian is still power creep within the barbarian class. Creating new classes that outclass earlier similar classes (ninja -> rogue) is still power creep. Creating new races that outclass previous races is still power creep. Creating feats that outclass previous feats is still power creep. Creating spells that outclass previous spells is still power creep. Creating enchantments that outclass previous enchantments is still power creep.
And every one of those things has happened.
Not to mention that some of those things (new, more powerful, spells, items and feats) actually apply to the already acknowledged most powerful classes.
The big 3 spellcasters in the PHB could bend reality to their will right out of the core handbook. Yeah, more powerful magic items and spells came along as time went on. But really, how many books would WotC sell if everything was weaker than what was in the core book? Power Creep is a part of the game. But for every super-mega new thing, there was usually a way to render it useless as well.
I'm not saying Power Creep didn't exist, I'm saying people who automatically assumed "newer=better" had their heads in the sand. The most glaring holes in game balance were set from the edition's launch day, not at it's end.
Heck, if anything, all power creep did was attempt to bring some of the weaker classes up to par with the god-tier spellcasters. Spellcasters just got some different options to maybe use instead of Wish, Miracle, etc.
Except for Nightsticks. Those things were just a bad, bad idea.
I'm not saying Power Creep didn't exist, I'm saying people who automatically assumed "newer=better" had their heads in the sand. The most glaring holes in game balance were set from the edition's launch day, not at it's end.
Heck, if anything, all power creep did was attempt to bring some of the weaker classes up to par with the god-tier spellcasters. Spellcasters just got some different options to maybe use instead of Wish, Miracle, etc.
Except for Nightsticks. Those things were just a bad, bad idea.
#1: The solution to having awesome cosmic-reality altering super classes is not to try to make characters who hit creatures with pointy sticks as powerful as the cosmic-reality altering super class. That just creates situations where hitting someone with a stick becomes a cosmic reality altering magical activity itself. And that just makes the game silly.
#2: It simply isn't accurate to say that "power creep" was all about how "lesser classes" were improved to be better able to compete with "god classes" because a significant portion of the "power creep" that was introduced actually makes those "god classes" themselves more powerful. This clearly demonstrates that power creep is something that occurs across the entire breadth and scope of the game, meaning it is a symptom of a general problem, not the result of any sort of attempt to "fix" anything that's broken.
#3: Marketing and sales.
|
The recent commotion about the Dueling property from Pathfinder Society Field Guide is a good example I think. That's a rather disturbing property.
I can live with intentional retuning of some classes to fix (perceived) imbalanced between them - like implementing the Ninja as a sort of disguised upgrade of the rogue - as long as it's done in "core" books.
What I dislike is when powerful new things pop up in peripheral and campaign-oriented supplements, but they're so good and/or generic that everyone wants them in a build, even characters that have no tie to that supplement's intended usage.
I also worry about new spells that seem good enough to render previously decent spells obsolete, same with feats. I think so far books like APG/UC/UM have been reasonably modest in the spell department; the majority of good/must have spells is still in the CRB.
I'd prefer it if new options are equal or just a little weaker (to be on the safe side), but different. Feat lines that are good enough to use instead of the old ones, but not so good that the old line becomes obsolete; allowing more different viable builds, rather than one better-and-better build.
---
On the whole I think PF is doing pretty well; some sketchy moves, but the core books are fairly in tune with each other. It's the supplements that perhaps don't get sufficient scrutiny that I worry about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Power creep is real.
To deny it is silly.
New barbarian rage powers, summoners, etc.
Pathfinder has been very good about it though. Right now the only things banned in my gaming group are Summoners and Leadership so it could be worse.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any power creep that applies to non tier 1 classes is ultimately a good thing as far as I'm concerned. The APG, UM, and UC have been out long enough IMHO that they have shown that they have things worth taking, but a majority of niche or plain old bad stuff too. Sure, some people will say that the things worth taking are broken because people are actually using those things over some garbage from the core book. Eh, sounds like a desire for stasis rather than legitimate complaints to me.
Some of the classes in the extended books are really good, witch and summoner are both high tier (1-2 range, depending on opinion), yet most of the other classes in those books are tier 3-5... just like the core book. Some of the feats are going to be used in nearly every build of a particular type, just like the core. Some of the feats are never going to be taken except for fluff or by people with poor system mastery, just like core.
The real power creep is the improved system mastery over time, and the highly optimized net builds that are slowly coming out that most people couldn't even conceive of without the power of the internet.
One area that does have potential for abuse is archetypes, but even then most of them are either worse, or about equal to the core version of that class. Even the "mighty" synthesist is arguably not stronger that the base summoner (what it gains in DPR and combat ability, it loses in action economy inherent in a caster + pet build).
Right now the game has over 20 different classes, tons of archetypes to use with those classes, of those classes there are 5 that most agree are top or near top tier. Wizard, cleric, druid, witch, summoner. 3 are from core, 2 from the expanded books. Seems fine. Of the other non core classes, they mostly fall in line with the other low or mid tier classes. Seems fine. Only exception is the ninja, while hardly being a powerful class for tiers purposes, it steps on the toes of the rogue, who hasn't gotten much love. Even the monk has gotten more love than the rogue.
Core only is fun enough, as a GM I used to run core only in 3.5 because even though the core was broken, I at least knew all the break points. In PF the core is much more balanced, and there isn't the busted spat books there were in 3.0 and 3.5, so I feel much more comfortable with just saying "anything paizo is allowed" than I ever was saying "all wizards material" or god forbid the "all wizards and 3rd party".
My thoughts, from 0-10 where 0 is core only and 10 is 3.5, PF is at about a 2 in terms of power creep. Which IMHO is mostly from increased build options without anything being overly dominating.
|
Design Manager
|
I like that Paizo's take on the game has at least kept Core classes viable throughout the breadth of the game. In 3.5 there were always classes being dropped that were categorically better than Core classes, there was no reason to play a straight Wizard/Sorcerer/Cleric past 5th level since there were so many PrC's that advanced your spellcasting and were absolutely superior to a bonus feat every 4 levels (if you got even that). Fighters waned in significance almost from the moment the first PHB hit shelves, and were completely obsolete by the time the Edition wound down and Book of Nine Swords hit.
I think the general power levels of the game overall are fairly in line with the starting ones, with a few small exceptions. The increase in options has fractionally raised the universal power limits a bit, but a party on a bad night can still end up eating it when a CR+2 Encounter doesn't go their way.
As to what represents actual power creep:
The Summoner. It can be a fun class, and I'm glad they went there and tried it, but ultimately there are just too many ways to build a character capable of single-handedly whipping up everything he needs to handle any encounter. His bard-progression-but-he-still-gets-most-of-the-good-stuff spells, wonk up the lists for items and abilities that reference other classes spell lists, he has just as much battlefield control as a full caster, and his eidolon is capable of being a primary damage machine on par with or exceeding any of the traditional melee damage dealers. And we won't even get into the Master Summoner or Synthesist craziness...
The Ninja can be somewhat better than a straight Rogue, though I think this one is far more reliant on system mastery and knowing how to use your character. The Ninja really only gains a couple abilities that the traditional rogue can't emulate with UMD, and the weapon list is different, but better is a bit arguable.
The Monk. Power creep happened, and it needed to. Yes, most of the archetypes are better than the core monk, but that's because Paizo got saddled with the OGL Monk and could only change so much initially. Sohei, Zen Archer, Martial Artist, and Qinggong were necessary patches, but still qualify as creep.
|
Design Manager
|
Oh yeah, and the Gunslinger. A class whose primary schtick is annihilating the traditional conventions for AC is definitely a marker for power creep. I think he comes up less often because of the tendency for them to either be glass cannons or relatively ineffective without much middle ground between the two (not to mention the ludicrously painful cost in gold per encounter to actually utilize their fullest potential), but a class who can one-round-kill CR+2 dragons and is virtually assured to go first probably deserves at least honorable mention in the power creep thread.
What I dislike is when powerful new things pop up in peripheral and campaign-oriented supplements, but they're so good and/or generic that everyone wants them in a build, even characters that have no tie to that supplement's intended usage.
This as well. Dervish Dance anyone? A feat that allows characters to use a stat that already plays into several key skills, Reflex Saves, Initiative, and AC for their attack and damage as well? There's some power creep there. To clarify though, I don't have a super huge issue with this mechanic, because I think a lot of DEX based characters needed a boost, I have a problem with a setting specific feat intended for followers of a specific deity in a specific region being used universally and being a flat-out mechanically superior option for numerous characters. I'd like some Core creep here that supports non-STR melee characters instead of a regional and religion specific feat that magically sweeps the universe by storm.
So far, on a couple occasions, I've seen:
"Pathfinder's great! They handle power creep really well!" *bans Summoner*
That said, Paizo do have a basic structure that has had plenty of time(over 10 years worth) to learn about some of the pitfalls of power creep in d20 material, and they've learned those lessons fairly well. So far things have been pretty fair from what I've played.
You guys are using the term power creep very differently to how I would.
Have some things got more powerful? Yes, of course. Weaker classes have been given a little help and archetypes have been made to make certain styles of character more effective. Neither of those is an example of power creep though. Both are concious attempts to shore up something that was lagging behind the rest of core.
Such options make the game more balanced and uniform, which is good in all the ways power creep is bad.
Obviously some things are more powerful without any particular good reason, but again, that's not because of power creep.
There has to be a most powerful Nth level spell a most powerful weapon property for barbarians. Why should it have to be in core? the more of our options come from splats,the more of our best options come from them. That's inevitable even if all splats , taken as wholes, are weaker than core.
It only becomes power creep if the average or the peaks get higher over time.
Citing semi-obscure campaign setting options and broken combinations from multiple sources as evidence of power creep is just silly.
EDIT: Of course, in some cases new options and more power for individual characters are one and the same. One sorcerer can only know so many spells, (barring that crazy thing above from the APG), but if you add spells to the cleric list and don't limit them at all, that's more power for every single cleric character. There's some slight power creep in that specific area.
|
Design Manager
|
Dervish Dance is inferior to the agile enhancement (Dex to damage) as it can only be used in sub-optimal duelist builds (one hand) the only class that really benefits from the feat are magus's who need a free hand anyway and possibly monks (using a weird variety of feats) to flurry with it.
The Agile enhancement is also from a non-core splat book, is another example of power creep (not necessarily bad, mind you), still requires a feat to gain both to-hit and damage, and only applies to finessable weapons. Plus you have to actually get an Agile weapon, which can be dependent upon party composition and GM charity. The huge number of bards and maguses (magii?) out there and the fact that their combat effectiveness is notably improved by having Dervish Dance speak to the need for that creep to work its way into a core product with a little more love and care, including options that actually work with core options like the Duelist.
That's neither here nor there though, and really only emphasizes my point about things introduced in non-core products that suddenly become indispensable.
As for magi only using scimitars, nonsense. I once built a magus to wield an urumi, though I wound up using a katana instead (GM just couldn't take a wobbly sword worn as a belt seriously, so he insisted I ditch it).
I have heard of a whip/scorpion whip magus. In the many games where dervish dance isn't available or nobody thinks to build it, they commonly use rapiers too.
Any magus with a spell athame has much less use for the high crit range in the first place.