Power Creep - Are the newer options just plain better than the Core Rulebook ones?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 277 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

There has been some talk of "bloat" lately, but what about just plain power creep? Reading through the Advanced Class Guide, there are several situations where the new options appear to just be better than Core rulebook options. Setting the Hybrid Classes aside for a moment, let's take a look at the Counterfeit Mage archetype compared to a baseline Rogue:

- Magical Expertise does everything that Trapfinder does, *plus* it adds a bonus to UMD

- Signature Wand replaces the 4th level Rogue Talent with something that is objectively better than any of the basic Rogue talents.

- Wand Adept doesn't replace anything, and again adds a useful bonus to UMD.

It seems like this option is just flat-out better than the Core Rulebook Rogue.

Similarly, the Martial Master archetype seems objectively better than the baseline Fighter. In exchange for giving up a maximum of +4 to attack/damage and a crit buff, you gain the ability to re-write your feat loadout on the fly.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Rogue: base rogue is so terrible you could give him anything, and unless it's absolutely useless, it'll be a trade up compared to average rogue talents.

Fighter: It's +6 attack/damage with the right gear, and rewriting your loadout is less useful when you already get twice as many feats than anyone else, and you probably can't switch your equipment as easily anyway. Also, the capstone is an incredible DPS boost.

What you should have used as an example was mutation warrior. That one gives up worthless armor training for a really good mutagen.

EDIT: sorry, forgot to answer. Still not better than wizards and druids.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I disagree that giving up +4 hit/damage is worth it, but, that said, power creep is both inevitable and an illusion.

First, it must exist because at some point, some option is going to be better than some other option in the core. You can't publish options for years with the core as the absolute cap of power.

Other things, like that rogue archetype or the entire slayer and investigator classes are kind of stealthy "oops, we messed up before" fixes for, well, how bad the core rogue is, for example.

But power creep is also an illusion, because for every option that's just better (say, counterfeit mage), there's a dozen more that are horribly weak (like, say, 90% of the other rogue archetypes). Stronger options exist now, but weaker ones do, too. It's basically a wash. Or even a net loss, frankly, since there are SO MANY bad archetypes, feats, spells, etc.


Not all of the newer options are better, but there are enough newer options that there will be power creep due to unintended interactions, some flat-out better options, and the need for more specific rule elements (to ensure new abilities that haven't been done before) that I think there's some power creep.

Combine that with the fact that every single designer of this game has a different view of what is balanced and what isn't, and you'll run into issues as more things are released.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Those options may be better than the CRB Rogue and Fighter, but they certainly are not better than the CRB Wizard, Cleric, or Druid. It's not power creep, it's a balance tweak.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing is, classes like the rogue and fighter were obsolete in the CRB, it just wasn't as glaring as it is now.

I do think a more balanced party/game would be a party of all 3/4th BAB and spellcasting classes. Those classes are strictly better in terms of design not necessarily power.


A balance tweak? Wouldn't one of those be accomplished by rewriting and rereleasing the Core Rulebook? This isn't an MMO where the developers can magically erase and replace the text in the Core Rulebook as a part of patching the system. That takes a new edition.

-Matt


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mattastrophic wrote:

A balance tweak? Wouldn't one of those be accomplished by rewriting and rereleasing the Core Rulebook? This isn't an MMO where the developers can magically erase and replace the text in the Core Rulebook as a part of patching the system. That takes a new edition.

-Matt

A new edition is more extreme than what Paizo wants to do and a total rewrite of the core rulebook is simply out of the question. The screaming and hollering people would do if that $50 they spent five years ago were to be obsoleted isn't worth the effort, so instead Paizo releases new books with content designed to patch old content (the Qinggong Monk being the most obvious example).


If new content was designed to patch old content, it would be clearly labeled as such. But it's not. It's pretty ludicrous to say that the Core rules don't stop at the last page of the Core Rulebook.

Also, how is a player/GM supposed to know which pieces of content are "patches" and which are not? How can a "patch" be effective if we don't even know what the "patches" are?

-Matt


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess it's only a duck if it has duck written on it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
LoneKnave wrote:
I guess it's only a duck if it has duck written on it.

Well of course.

Otherwise it's just confusing.


Yay, another rogue thread.


Mattastrophic wrote:
Also, how is a player/GM supposed to know which pieces of content are "patches" and which are not? How can a "patch" be effective if we don't even know what the "patches" are?

Hey, I didn't say it was the best fix. I didn't even say it was a good one. It's just the one Paizo's decided to go with.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's hard to find when "bloat" first became topic of discussion in relation to PF specifically. Probably by the time of the second supplement. Some people are just a teensy bit alarmist about it.

Scarab Sages

I think that a "patch" is the entire point of Pathfinder Unchained.


Mattastrophic wrote:

If new content was designed to patch old content, it would be clearly labeled as such. But it's not. It's pretty ludicrous to say that the Core rules don't stop at the last page of the Core Rulebook.

Also, how is a player/GM supposed to know which pieces of content are "patches" and which are not? How can a "patch" be effective if we don't even know what the "patches" are?

-Matt

Simple. Here's how it works:

Step 1. Level up your System Mastery.
Step 2. Determine the classes that desperately need help.
Step 3. Determine if a new archetype/feat/ability/item/etc. benefits one of the classes from 2.

Or for people who don't want to go through all that effort:

Step 1. 99.9% of the time anything that buffs Fighter, Rogue or Swashbuckler is balance fixing not power creep.

See? Easy 1 Step process!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the gap between the hardcore optimizers and the noobs is growing for sure. But the learning curve is changing as well. I have run PFS for complete noobs and had them walk in with a musket master, a zen archer, a fey sorcerer and a warpriest of Gorum. Just reading guides on the internet can get someone much greater power than a CRB only character.

Some people pine for the part of an edition where everything is compact and knowable. I love the part of an edition where the optimizers are missing things left and right and builds out of left field start appearing. YMMV.


Class power creep is probably minimal. I think the Core Bard, Paladin, Druid, Cleric, and Wizard still sit at the top of their respective classes. Others, like Barbarian, Sorcerer, and Ranger are probably still above the mean for their classes.

Option power creep, with feats, spells, and other things like rage powers, domains, bloodlines, etc., is inevitable. If you publish new options that are across the board strictly weaker than all the Core options, then you're not going to sell many books.


They still have yet to create something more powerful than wish except maybe mythic wish in which case the whole point is to play god. :)

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There also isn't a feat published that is more powerful than Leadership, although Craft Wondrous Item comes close.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Mattastrophic wrote:

A balance tweak? Wouldn't one of those be accomplished by rewriting and rereleasing the Core Rulebook? This isn't an MMO where the developers can magically erase and replace the text in the Core Rulebook as a part of patching the system. That takes a new edition.

-Matt

A new edition is more extreme than what Paizo wants to do and a total rewrite of the core rulebook is simply out of the question. The screaming and hollering people would do if that $50 they spent five years ago were to be obsoleted isn't worth the effort, so instead Paizo releases new books with content designed to patch old content (the Qinggong Monk being the most obvious example).

Indeed, and Paizo want an effectively static core in order to maintain backward compatibility for all the adventures. Remember, the adventure sales are what it's all about for Paizo and I don't have a problem with that.

That said, I'm still desperate for a monk that can actually do what monks are meant to do. The brawler was just salt rubbed in the monk's wounds as far as I can tell.


Imbicatus wrote:
There also isn't a feat published that is more powerful than Leadership, although Craft Wondrous Item comes close.

+1 for truth.


Dabbler wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mattastrophic wrote:

A balance tweak? Wouldn't one of those be accomplished by rewriting and rereleasing the Core Rulebook? This isn't an MMO where the developers can magically erase and replace the text in the Core Rulebook as a part of patching the system. That takes a new edition.

-Matt

A new edition is more extreme than what Paizo wants to do and a total rewrite of the core rulebook is simply out of the question. The screaming and hollering people would do if that $50 they spent five years ago were to be obsoleted isn't worth the effort, so instead Paizo releases new books with content designed to patch old content (the Qinggong Monk being the most obvious example).

Indeed, and Paizo want an effectively static core in order to maintain backward compatibility for all the adventures. Remember, the adventure sales are what it's all about for Paizo and I don't have a problem with that.

That said, I'm still desperate for a monk that can actually do what monks are meant to do. The brawler was just salt rubbed in the monk's wounds as far as I can tell.

It's 3rd party, but Meditant Psychic Warrior is everything I ever wanted in a martial artist type character. The language that makes Flurry of Strikes count as Flurry of Blows in particular is a lifesaver.


If you define power creep as any option being better then any other option that does something roughly similar. Then certainly there is power creep. But thats sort of an insane standard unless the game was perfect to begin with.

Certain concepts (mostly those that lack magic) were relatively weak in the core rules. What can be created now, and what can be created then has become more even when considering all concepts, instead of limiting your comparison to just one.

For instance, the poor always maligned rogue. Core rules, very limited, sort of dull, and often are very difficult to make work the way you expect them to. Now, you can make a character that works alot like that, rather easily. Just pick one of the classes that does it well. None of them are better then a core rulebook druid though. To me, that means its not power creep, its power balance. More concepts are closer to equal then they used to be. To me this is a univeral good thing so long as the very top of the heap stays about the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mattastrophic wrote:

A balance tweak? Wouldn't one of those be accomplished by rewriting and rereleasing the Core Rulebook? This isn't an MMO where the developers can magically erase and replace the text in the Core Rulebook as a part of patching the system. That takes a new edition.

-Matt

A new edition is more extreme than what Paizo wants to do and a total rewrite of the core rulebook is simply out of the question. The screaming and hollering people would do if that $50 they spent five years ago were to be obsoleted isn't worth the effort, so instead Paizo releases new books with content designed to patch old content (the Qinggong Monk being the most obvious example).

Indeed, and Paizo want an effectively static core in order to maintain backward compatibility for all the adventures. Remember, the adventure sales are what it's all about for Paizo and I don't have a problem with that.

That said, I'm still desperate for a monk that can actually do what monks are meant to do. The brawler was just salt rubbed in the monk's wounds as far as I can tell.

It's 3rd party, but Meditant Psychic Warrior is everything I ever wanted in a martial artist type character. The language that makes Flurry of Strikes count as Flurry of Blows in particular is a lifesaver.

Another option is the rogue genius games product, the talented monk. By being able to pick and choose things within all the options available with the monk and it's archetypes, you can actually make a pretty effective monk in the classic (core rulebook) style, without having to bang your head against all of it's issues (unless you want to ofcourse).

Grand Lodge

Dabbler wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mattastrophic wrote:

A balance tweak? Wouldn't one of those be accomplished by rewriting and rereleasing the Core Rulebook? This isn't an MMO where the developers can magically erase and replace the text in the Core Rulebook as a part of patching the system. That takes a new edition.

-Matt

A new edition is more extreme than what Paizo wants to do and a total rewrite of the core rulebook is simply out of the question. The screaming and hollering people would do if that $50 they spent five years ago were to be obsoleted isn't worth the effort, so instead Paizo releases new books with content designed to patch old content (the Qinggong Monk being the most obvious example).

Indeed, and Paizo want an effectively static core in order to maintain backward compatibility for all the adventures. Remember, the adventure sales are what it's all about for Paizo and I don't have a problem with that.

That said, I'm still desperate for a monk that can actually do what monks are meant to do. The brawler was just salt rubbed in the monk's wounds as far as I can tell.

I've heard this complaint about the monk before, and that it has something to do with their class description in the CRB, but what exactly are people's expectations for the monk from this?

Scarab Sages

As far as the monk is concerned, I like it MUCH more than the brawler. archetypes and pummeling style fix every problem with the class except the waste of wholeness of body, that can be traded out with qinggong.


That the Monk be a mobile, agile combatant, who fights unarmed, and has some magical or pseudo-magical tricks that complement that theme.

As-is he's neither mobile (his high speed is made worthless by needing to stand and full attack like everyone else), nor agile (Monks are actively discouraged from being Dex based in most cases), they have no incentive to fight Unarmed (the only way to be a good unarmed combatant is to gimp yourself with a weapon that costs twice as much as a normal weapon for half the benefit, among other drawbacks that have no significant upsides to make up for them), and his magical tricks are often nearly worthless (High Jump, Slow Fall, Wholeness of Body), not at all complementary (Abundant Step), or actively hinder the Monk (Diamond Soul).


spectrevk wrote:
There has been some talk of "bloat" lately, but what about just plain power creep? Reading through the Advanced Class Guide, there are several situations where the new options appear to just be better than Core rulebook options. Setting the Hybrid Classes aside for a moment, let's take a look at the Counterfeit Mage archetype compared to a baseline Rogue:

The core rulebook has leadership...

spectrevk wrote:
- Magical Expertise does everything that Trapfinder does, *plus* it adds a bonus to UMD

And Craft wondrous Item..

spectrevk wrote:
- Signature Wand replaces the 4th level Rogue Talent with something that is objectively better than any of the basic Rogue talents.
spectrevk wrote:
- Wand Adept doesn't replace anything, and again adds a useful bonus to UMD.

And Craft arms and armor...

spectrevk wrote:
It seems like this option is just flat-out better than the Core Rulebook Rogue.

And simulacrum...

spectrevk wrote:
Similarly, the Martial Master archetype seems objectively better than the baseline Fighter. In exchange for giving up a maximum of +4 to attack/damage and a crit buff, you gain the ability to re-write your feat loadout on the fly.

There are options in the CRB which have been overshadowed by better options but most of your given options were terrible to bad when released in the first place.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mobility is granted by Pummeling Charge.
Agile is covered by an Agile AoMF.
Unarmed is encouraged because Pummeling Style is unarmed only.
Amulet of Mighty Fists needs an update to match normal enchantments, but it used to be worse.
Bad options like Wholeness of Body or Diamond Soul can be exchanged for useful ones via archetypes.


He asked about the CRB Monk, matey.

Scarab Sages

Well, the CRB monk has issues, yeah.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
He asked about the CRB Monk, matey.

Picking the weakest things from the CRB and saying they are outclassed by average choices from future books just proves the CRB had issues, most of them based on legacy issues.


Imbicatus wrote:

Mobility is granted by Pummeling Charge.

Agile is covered by an Agile AoMF.
Unarmed is encouraged because Pummeling Style is unarmed only.
Amulet of Mighty Fists needs an update to match normal enchantments, but it used to be worse.
Bad options like Wholeness of Body or Diamond Soul can be exchanged for useful ones via archetypes.

Though I take some issues with some of these as well.

Pummeling Charge isn't really mobility. It certainly fixes the "Why can't I full attack?" issue, but running like a madman in a straight line is not the mobility I picture when I think "Monk".

The Agile enchantment trades one gimp for another gimp, since now all of a sudden you can never overcome DR Good/Chaos/Evil. GJ.

Another fun thing about Pummeling Charge is, it's sort of a masterpiece of stupidity in how its prerequisites work. You can either trade every Feat you get until 9 (since you need Combat Expertise, Improved Reposition, Improved Trip, Pummeling Style, Pummeling Bully, and finally Pummeling Charge), get rid of Flurry entirely (or do the smart thing and dip MoMS then go Brawler), or do without. It fixes one problem by introducing a severe lack of build versatility.

Scarab Sages

Undone wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
He asked about the CRB Monk, matey.
Picking the weakest things from the CRB and saying they are outclassed by average choices from future books just proves the CRB had issues, most of them based on legacy issues.

The problem was there was different levels of rebalancing done to the CRB classes when changing from 3.5 to pathfinder.

Going back to Wholeness of Body vs Lay on Hands.

In 3.5 Lay on Hands healed a total number of points of damage per day equal to level x cha bonus as a standard action.

The 3.5 Wholeness of body healed 2 points of damage per monk level per day as a standard action.

They were relatively equal.

In pathfinder Lay on Hands was bumped to 1d6 healed per two paladin levels multiple times per day as a swift action.

But Wholeness of body was unchanged from 3.5, with the exception that you could use it multiple times by squandering your tiny ki pool on it.

If wholeness of body was buffed to be relatively equal to lay on hands when pathfinder was released, there would be much less problems with the monk.


Rynjin wrote:
Another fun thing about Pummeling Charge is, it's sort of a masterpiece of stupidity in how its prerequisites work. You can either trade every Feat you get until 9 (since you need Combat Expertise, Improved Reposition, Improved Trip, Pummeling Style, Pummeling Bully, and finally Pummeling Charge), get rid of Flurry entirely (or do the smart thing and dip MoMS then go Brawler), or do without. It fixes one problem by introducing a severe lack of build versatility.

You may want to look at those prerequisites again. Pummeling Charge doesn't require Pummeling Bully.

Liberty's Edge

"Power Creep", as naively defined, is inevitable.

Everyone wants to play an interesting concept. The core rulebook will only have so many options, and those options will be bad for many concepts but might be taken anyway simply because they're the best available. As more rulebooks are released, more options exist, and the same concept will be built in a way that is stronger.

This is not really power creep, in my opinion, because it does not increase the "max" of power, just the average.

Yes, new options exist that flat-out obsolete some CRB options. That's fine. The options being made obsolete were terrible. Just awful. A double-decker couch is a better idea than some of those CRB abilities. And the awful didn't stop at CRB, but the further ahead you get the less likely it is you'll need to take an awful option. Did you know there are feats in later books that are literally useless? I do not mean that hyperbolically, I mean they literally have no use as they grant options the CRB explicitly gives you for free.

TL;DR - The only "power creep" is for mediocre or flat-out sub-par options, which is precisely where it doesn't matter. The simple answer to the question in this thread's subject line is "Yes. Sometimes."

Scarab Sages

Rynjin wrote:


Another fun thing about Pummeling Charge is, it's sort of a masterpiece of stupidity in how its prerequisites work. You can either trade every Feat you get until 9 (since you need Combat Expertise, Improved Reposition, Improved Trip, Pummeling Style, Pummeling Bully, and finally Pummeling Charge), get rid of Flurry entirely (or do the smart thing and dip MoMS then go Brawler), or do without. It fixes one problem by introducing a severe lack of build versatility.

Fun fact: Pummeling Bully is not a prerequisite of Pummeling Charge.

You can ignore it, and unless you are making a very odd build you should.


You know, I think I knew that at one point and forgot it again.

That actually gives me slightly more wiggle room on one build I'm working on (I can take it with a normal Feat instead of a Style Feat).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the core problems for the monk are:

1) 3rd edition D&D kills mobility for noncasters because of the full attack action. If everyone could full attack as a standard action and either damage was scaled back or hp scaled up, every martial would be drastically better off.

2) The game is balanced at high levels by "stuff," but the classic monk is defined by not using stuff. My preference here would be to remove the stuff as a balance point, but that won't happen. So, the ridiculously obvious solution, and I can't figure out why it wasn't done years ago, is to just treat the monk as stuff. In other words, allow monk unarmed strikes to be enchanted like normal weapons. Make them tattoos ink or incense or anointing oil or something if it has to be lootable. Problem solved. Why hasn't this been done?

3) The Monk is MAD. Most fun classes are. Raise point buy. It hurts only full casters (because saves go up) who need some hurting anyway, and helps all martials and other quirky builds.


Rynjin wrote:
Pummeling Charge isn't really mobility. It certainly fixes the "Why can't I full attack?" issue, but running like a madman in a straight line is not the mobility I picture when I think "Monk"

I think the Cricket Medium spirit is pretty solid in terms of what you and I would like to see a mobile Monk be able to do. Maybe the Occult Adventures book will include a Monk archetype that steals its abilities?


spectrevk wrote:


- Magical Expertise does everything that Trapfinder does, *plus* it adds a bonus to UMD

keep in mind, this only applies to MAGICAL traps, he loses the bonuses against mundane traps. Hence, the slight buff.

Quote:
- Signature Wand replaces the 4th level Rogue Talent with something that is objectively better than any of the basic Rogue talents.

This is a low bar to hurdle. Out of the 10 talents a rogue can select in his adventuring career, i can't even name ten that I feel like I would actually need.

Quote:
It seems like this option is just flat-out better than the Core Rulebook Rogue.

Everything in Core was already flat out better than the Rogue. Except for MAYBE the fighter, but that is dependent on the rest of the party make-up

Quote:


Similarly, the Martial Master archetype seems objectively better than the baseline Fighter. In exchange for giving up a maximum of +4 to attack/damage and a crit buff, you gain the ability to re-write your feat loadout on the fly.

I have actually seen a number of people state that this is WORSE than the +4/+4, I happen to disagree with them, and enjoy the fact that fighters get to have some flexibility, not being locked it to mostly worthless feat chains.


The Crusader wrote:
If you publish new options that are across the board strictly weaker than all the Core options, then you're not going to sell many books.

That is all the explanation needed.


Will.Spencer wrote:
The Crusader wrote:
If you publish new options that are across the board strictly weaker than all the Core options, then you're not going to sell many books.
That is all the explanation needed.

Yet paizo does that.

For the most put, everything printed is weaker than top shelf CRB.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Will.Spencer wrote:
The Crusader wrote:
If you publish new options that are across the board strictly weaker than all the Core options, then you're not going to sell many books.
That is all the explanation needed.

Yet paizo does that.

For the most put, everything printed is weaker than top shelf CRB.

I dont think full casters are the measuring stick unless you had another definition of top shelf.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

It's just outrageous, every book is totally overpowered compared to every other book!

Also, every book is underpowered compared to every other book!

...because if you pick the weakest thing(s) from one book and compare them to the strongest thing(s) in another one, one of those things is going to be stronger than the other.

"Power creep" is a phrase that should be completely banned from the forums. Along with "IRL Pathfinder" and "badwrongfun".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is anything better than the Core Rulebook Wizard with just Core Rulebook spells?

No?

Then there is no power creep.

Even Wizard options from books either keep the Wizard at it's same level of power, or actually make the Wizard weaker (more flavorful, but weaker).

Are there better options in newer books for certain classes over others?

Yes.

Sacred Fist is arguably a better Monk than the current base Monk. But the base Monk is also worse than several of its Archetypes, which are phenomenal.

Pummeling Strike makes all Unarmed combatants nearly as strong as weapon-based martials.

Bloodrager is in several ways a better Dragon Disciple than the original Dragon Disciple: starts at lv1, isn't locked into ONLY Dragon Bloodline, has nearly the same progression of spell levels as a Barb 4+/Sorc 1/DD 10 with a better CL, doesn't require multiclassing, can cast spells while raging, and retains all the martial prowess of a Barbarian. It loses out on a lot of non-spellcasting tricks that a Barbarian has (Rage Powers mostly), but if you want a Rage-Mage then all your Barbarian/[insert spellcaster class here] multiclassers are probably better off being converted into Bloodragers.

Arcanist is a crazy mish-mash of Sorcerer and Wizard wrapped up in a nice little shell of awesomeness that's somewhere in the vicinity of the Cleric or Druid in power - not as powerful as the Wizard, but still very strong and doesn't leave you with the bad taste of playing the "I Win" Class.

Power Creep will begin the moment something supersedes the CRB-only Wizard for power.

Until then, you only have less-powerful classes becoming slowly more powerful in order to become balanced.


chbgraphicarts wrote:

Is anything better than the Core Rulebook Wizard with just Core Rulebook spells?

No?

Then there is no power creep.

Even Wizard options from books either keep the Wizard at it's same level of power, or actually make the Wizard weaker (more flavorful, but weaker).

Power Creep will begin the moment something supersedes the CRB-only Wizard for power.

Until then, you only have less-powerful classes becoming slowly more powerful in order to become balanced.

Advanced Class Guide. Exploiter Wizard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ipslore the Red wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:

Is anything better than the Core Rulebook Wizard with just Core Rulebook spells?

No?

Then there is no power creep.

Even Wizard options from books either keep the Wizard at it's same level of power, or actually make the Wizard weaker (more flavorful, but weaker).

Power Creep will begin the moment something supersedes the CRB-only Wizard for power.

Until then, you only have less-powerful classes becoming slowly more powerful in order to become balanced.

Advanced Class Guide. Exploiter Wizard.

Loss of Arcane Bond, loss of spells, and loss of School Abilities. I'm gonna say either "as powerful" or "less powerful" but I'm calling BS on Exploiter being better than the Core Wizard.

RAW, they don't even gain Greater Exploits, so it seems REALLY weak compared to the Core Wizard.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
Ipslore the Red wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:

Is anything better than the Core Rulebook Wizard with just Core Rulebook spells?

No?

Then there is no power creep.

Even Wizard options from books either keep the Wizard at it's same level of power, or actually make the Wizard weaker (more flavorful, but weaker).

Power Creep will begin the moment something supersedes the CRB-only Wizard for power.

Until then, you only have less-powerful classes becoming slowly more powerful in order to become balanced.

Advanced Class Guide. Exploiter Wizard.
Loss of Arcane Bond, loss of spells, and loss of School Abilities. I'm gonna say either "as powerful" or "less powerful" but I'm calling BS on Exploiter being better than the Core Wizard.

hahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahah

1 to 50 of 277 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Power Creep - Are the newer options just plain better than the Core Rulebook ones? All Messageboards