|
A fighter on the other hand cannot change the feats he has gained and has a small pool of feats to pick up.Fighters actually can change out their bonus feats, just like spontaneous casters can change spells.
I was going to point this out as well. Fighters are a bit more versatile than people give them credit for. I've actually seen a character transition from a ranged fighter during his first 6 levels to a fully feated TWF by 12 or so using retraining.
I was going to point this out as well. Fighters are a bit more versatile than people give them credit for. I've actually seen a character transition from a ranged fighter during his first 6 levels to a fully feated TWF by 12 or so using retraining.A fighter on the other hand cannot change the feats he has gained and has a small pool of feats to pick up.Fighters actually can change out their bonus feats, just like spontaneous casters can change spells.
Let me rephrase my point... A fighter has a limit of 20 or so feats... A wizard has no limit on the number of spells he has other then the number of pages/spell books he has. New material is much easier for a Wizard/druid/cleric/ect to acquire and requires zero sacrifice.
|
Clerics are extremely limited in that they get very little new material that isn't spcialized, and something that really needs to be taken at 1at level. Also note for Clerics, they ONLY get the core rule book spell material for free. ALL other spells not specific to their deity, they need to research just like a Wizard, except there are not random Cleric Books out there in treasure.
Druids don't really have these issues, so I'll give you that, (but Druids are also well known as the single most powerful class in the game).
Wizards do have an easier time by it, but many of the new spells that come out are (or at least are suppossed to be) rare spells, so finding a scroll shouldn't be that easy.
That is one advantage that Sorcerer's and Oracle's have, they can pick any of those spells as spells known for free, where the Cleric and Wizard need to find a source to actually learn them. Between that and that Sorcerer's and Oracle's bth spont. cast using Cha, the two classes are nothing alike.
|
|
Clerics are extremely limited in that they get very little new material that isn't spcialized, and something that really needs to be taken at 1at level. Also note for Clerics, they ONLY get the core rule book spell material for free. ALL other spells not specific to their deity, they need to research just like a Wizard, except there are not random Cleric Books out there in treasure.
***
I'd like you to back that assertion up as it seems incorrect to me.
A cleric may prepare and cast any spell on the cleric spell list, provided that she can cast spells of that level, but she must choose which spells to prepare during her daily meditation.|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The Devs pointed out that this line:
"Spells: A cleric casts divine spells which are drawn from the cleric spell list presented in Chapter 10" indicates that Clerics only get those spells as auto known, and that all other spells outside the CRB must be gained through other means, usually personal research, and that the line you quoted does not apply to any other material after the CRB, (I believe the APG is an exception).
The Devs pointed out that this line:
"Spells: A cleric casts divine spells which are drawn from the cleric spell list presented in Chapter 10" indicates that Clerics only get those spells as auto known, and that all other spells outside the CRB must be gained through other means, usually personal research, and that the line you quoted does not apply to any other material after the CRB, (I believe the APG is an exception).
Do you have a link to where the Devs pointed out that?
|
|
The Devs pointed out that this line:
"Spells: A cleric casts divine spells which are drawn from the cleric spell list presented in Chapter 10" indicates that Clerics only get those spells as auto known, and that all other spells outside the CRB must be gained through other means, usually personal research, and that the line you quoted does not apply to any other material after the CRB, (I believe the APG is an exception).
I'm gonna jump on the bandwagon with thejeff and gustavo here and request a link to a developer actually making that statement, because it's completely non-sensical, not to mention that such a ruling is contradictory to the text I quoted and linked in above.
|
The Spell lists for these classes are not equal, (wiz v clerics v summoner)
The wizard rocks the spell list war with long term or permanate spells or large area of effect spells.
Although I've not looked over Summoner to evaluate their spell list, besides knowing the early entry complaints like haste.
|
|
The Spell lists for these classes are not equal, (wiz v clerics v summoner)
The wizard rocks the spell list war with long term or permanate spells or large area of effect spells.
Although I've not looked over Summoner to evaluate their spell list, besides knowing the early entry complaints like haste.
For a 3/4 caster his spell list is pretty boss. They've got a cherry-picked selection of some of the best conjuration and transmutation spells, some available as a lower level spell than they are for other classes, a pretty nice selection of illusion spells, and of course their specialty spells for manipulating their Eidolon (which can be very potent in their own right). A summoner can buff and summon, create walls and pits, fling Glitterdust and Grease, and charm/hold/dominate monsters, all while wrapped up by his spell-turning/protection from spells and stoneskin.
|
|
Do you have a link to where the Devs pointed out that?The Devs pointed out that this line:
"Spells: A cleric casts divine spells which are drawn from the cleric spell list presented in Chapter 10" indicates that Clerics only get those spells as auto known, and that all other spells outside the CRB must be gained through other means, usually personal research, and that the line you quoted does not apply to any other material after the CRB, (I believe the APG is an exception).
I'll see what I can do. It was a long time ago. It is actually true for all classes, but it really only matters to the Cleric and Druid.
Fleet vs Tribal Scars (Raptorscale).
One grants a +5 ft. bonus to base speed, the other grants a +5 ft. bonus to base speed, 6 hp and a +2 bonus on acrobatics. And you can take it at first level, so it's also better than Toughness for the first 6 levels.
Can you provide a link to Tribal Scars? I can't seem to find that anywhere.
[I hope that between pages 2 and this one this point wasn't already made...]
A lot of people have made the point that in order to survive a publisher needs to sell documents. OK. True. But you don't need to sell more and more rules documents or stuff power creep into scenarios.
You can sell scenarios and setting books. Especially scenarios. I've purchased three PF rules books. And many, many scenarios (which I will never get to play, I am sure).
I wonder to what degree the putting out of more and more rules supplements is really necessary to profitability.
[I hope that between pages 2 and this one this point wasn't already made...]
A lot of people have made the point that in order to survive a publisher needs to sell documents. OK. True. But you don't need to sell more and more rules documents or stuff power creep into scenarios.
You can sell scenarios and setting books. Especially scenarios. I've purchased three PF rules books. And many, many scenarios (which I will never get to play, I am sure).
I wonder to what degree the putting out of more and more rules supplements is really necessary to profitability.
It is 100% necessary if they want my money. I don't buy setting or scenario books at all. I can tell my own stories. Writing my own rules, though, is far more complicated.
It's less creep than I expected.
Only major creep is in the Mythic stuff... which is specifically designed for that kind of creep.
I'll admit, I don't have (or haven't looked through) all the books from the past year, but there wasn't much I saw that screamed "power creep" to me. I was concerned that the Drawbacks might, based on how flaws in 3.5 worked, but they mostly seem balanced, as a trait is generally less powerful than a feat, and most of the drawbacks are situational enough to not be too much of a hinderance, but at the same time, hard to avoid altogether (unless you want to eschew any social contact)
Otherwise, it seems like the standard Paizo faire of providing a few more options that aren't too much more powerful than what came before them, assuming you ignore the inherent power increase that corresponds to more options (and thus, more ways for certain feat-combinations or such to be abusive)
But this is far from 3.5's level, where not only did they have the problems associated with simply having a wide breadth of options (which they had far more than PF), as well as less quality control over what was too powerful or not powerful enough.
It's less creep than I expected.
Only major creep is in the Mythic stuff... which is specifically designed for that kind of creep.
I don't count this as power creep, since this is under the DM's complete control. Or to put it better: Feats and Archetypes and other options are usually considered to be in play, unless otherwise noted. Mythic rules aren't. IMO, if the DM has to say 'yes' rather than not saying 'no', I don't really count that as power creep.
How the situatio have changed in the year since this thread?
I have to agree, I feel that there's really not been much power creep in the past years.
I have to agree, I feel that there's really not been much power creep in the past years.
What were the major books to come out in 2013? Ultimate Campaign had retraining in it. Was there anything else?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am curious, IF you took the Core rulebook as the zero point how would you rate the power creep in the later books?
Do you mean including all of the 3.5 stuff or not?
Remember that PF was originally pitched as being fully compatible with all of the 3.5 stuff.
My regular playing group has been playing with all of the 3.5 stuff since we started playing PF, so when I see these responses that are basically the equivalent of jumping up and down screaming "YOU *FOOL* YOU DO *NOT* MIX 3.5 AND PATHFINDER *EVARRRR*!!!11eleveni!!", I think it's sort of amusing.
My *suspicion* is that a lot of the people who pull this stunt when asked if PF option X, Y, or Z is overpowered (and the asker is mixing 3.5 with PF) do not actually own many or any of the 3.5 books. It's understandable that they don't want to hear about how their pet class, spell, or magic item doesn't play nice with a set of rules that they consider outmoded. So they jump up and down like rabid monkeys on the person asking the question -- the person with the *UNMITIGATED* *GALL* to be polluting the pure and pristine perfection of Pathfinder with the corrupt and polluted *FILTH* of *3.5* material.
All that aside, I see definite power creep since the core book. The new core classes (gunslinger, magus, alchemist, and summoner) have generated a LOT of discussion about how OP they are -- and not all of that discussion is unwarranted. I've seen it in the campaigns I run and play in to the point where some players (including myself, and I'm playing a sorceress who specializes in rainbow magic) have voluntarily nerfed our own characters because we could see how ridiculous things were getting.
Of course if you put all 3.5 stuff to the axe, there are less problems, but that's just it -- more material inevitably leads to more power. Looking at the rainbow themed spells I'm using for my sorceress that come from the 3.5 Spell Compendium (Rainbow Beam, Rainbow Blast, Prismatic Ray, etc), it would be sort of laughable to hear someone call them overpowered. But other stuff like mixing Magical Heritage with Arcane Thesis, eh... That can be a problem.
I can already hear the monkey swarm working itself into a fruit-flinging frenzy over the fact that I've admitted to using 3.5 material in my games, but the fact is that some of us were playing D&D from before 3.0, have huge libraries of material from that time period, and haven't really felt like burning it all just yet (although I would admit that it would certainly tone back some of the crazy munchkin stuff that players so inclined can come up with). It might be a lot easier to take the point of view that seems popular here in the forums if one didn't own many (or any) 3.5 books.
EDIT: To be clear, when I begin my next campaign, which looks like it will be Carrion Crown, I will be giving the players a choice between the campaign being E8 plus Mythic (3.5 stuff allowed) and straight up Pathfinder (not allowing any material published after to the first Carrion Crown path book came out). In the end I tend to AGREE that it may be time to leave 3.5 material in the past, but I find doing so to be problematic when the material in question really isn't "OP" and really does help round out a well-themed character (such as a gnome sorceress with rainbow spells). Also, as I said, some people are a bit... extreme... with their admonishments not to use 3.5 with Pathfinder.
It's the same. It's fine.
Fine? Maybe. The same? Absolutely not.
In a pre-gunslinger world, for example, DMs had a much easier time of challenging parties.
I am curious, IF you took the Core rulebook as the zero point how would you rate the power creep in the later books?
I think pathfinder has a power seep problem. It seems like new material is almost always worse.
Barbars got better because they got more abilities that were on par with superstition.
Rogues are just getting worse and worse. Most of their talents are either crap, don't do anything, or just flat out don't work.
Feats chains are just getting longer and more esoteric. Seems like most material was made for NPCs.
New spells just aren't as good as what is in core on the average. Not that spell casters care. Situational spells are FAR more useful than crap feats. A divine spell caster with "enlarge cheese" may have that spell be useful once, but that spell existing makes the divine spell caster more powerful in that situation, while a feat or rogue talent of "Slice cheese" is just a good way to gimp your character.
Then you get new base classes like the Brawler and Investigator, which are just worse versions than the two classes they come from. "Especially brawer. It's worse at unarmed combat then the fighter brawler archetype.
I am curious, IF you took the Core rulebook as the zero point how would you rate the power creep in the later books?I think pathfinder has a power seep problem. It seems like new material is almost always worse.
That assertion would make sense if players had to roll their classes, feats, magic items, etc. randomly, using all extant published options.
However, they do not. As such, if even 1% of post-core-rules published options allow for the creation of characters that are more powerful than core-rules characters, then you have power creep.
I am curious, IF you took the Core rulebook as the zero point how would you rate the power creep in the later books?I think pathfinder has a power seep problem. It seems like new material is almost always worse.
That assertion would make sense if players had to roll their classes, feats, magic items, etc. randomly, using all extant published options.
However, they do not. As such, if even 1% of post-core-rules published options allow for the creation of characters that are more powerful than core-rules characters, then you have power creep.
This sentiment is exactly why new material is getting worse and worse.
This sentiment is exactly why new material is getting worse and worse.
"Sentiment" implies an argument based on emotion, and not facts. The fact is that even if only one out of one hundred new options is actually superior to what came before, there is power creep.
Unless players have to randomly roll to see what options they get to use. But if you are doing that, then you aren't playing Pathfinder.
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.
Rogue kind of got the shaft in later books, but oh well.
Uh, Rogues got the Shaft in the Core books.
They nerfed avenues (pathways to qualify for sneak attack) to Sneak Attack that 3.5 allowed. The Designers Shafted them in the beginning.Sure, they lowered immunities, but the thing is if you can't get an avenue, immunities don't matter.
Power Creep added back avenues (Shatter Defenses as example).
We need more Power Creep pointed at Monks, Rogues, and probably the new Slayer (but we won't know till they release it).
Sneak attack is more effective in Pathfinder than 3.5, I don't understand what you're saying?
Oh, really, can you give opponents stagger by 10th level every time you sneak attack with no damage lose?
We can in 3.5. 1 feat.
Can you sneak attack Oozes in Pathfinder? In 3.5 we can. 1 archetype (we called them Alternate class features back then).
Please, elaborate, how is sneak attack more effective? You have the same chance to hit. We guaranteed sneak attack with grease spell (wand, scroll, staff; UMD skill) or Blink. We both can use invisibility.
Now we aren't mentioning Ninja. Yes, it is an alternate class, but rogues aren't technically them.
In fact, just to add fuel to the power nerf that Pathfinder Core for Rogues is Acid flask hit touch AC in 3.5. And direct hits adds sneak attack. Quick draw works on weapon-like things like flasks. So does TWfing/Rapid Shot.
You see where I'm going. Core 3.5 Rogues have a better to hit with touch attacks than you probably have in PF even with all your splat combined (Touch AC is remarkably low).
So yeah, Rogues got a smidge of nerf in Pathfinder.
Now, like the Gunslinger, Acid flasking is expensive (and as there is no DR, you have to have a golf bag as undead/demons need holy water, fire elemental need acid, acid immune creature like Black dragons need alchemist fire, etc).
But hey, think about how much cheaper a heward handysack with them inside is compared to a magic weapon to bypass DR.
Not that a +1 dagger you throw/melee in emergencies isn't smart. But mostly you'll throw flasks.
Even better, as if cake, they deal splash damage (mostly 1's or 2's, sneak attack doesn't apply to splash damage).
Assuming wer using 3.5 splat:
If you don't want to get Penetrating Strike alternate class feature- wands of Gravestrike/Golemstrike/Plantstrike/Ooze Strike bypass immunity to Sneak attack.
1) Halfing Rogue substitution gets +2d6 sneak at 1st with ranged/throwing (Strongheart Halfing gets a bonus feat)
2) Wand Bracer lets you use a wand without holding it. Or Shield Chamber to do same if have a buckler
3) Spells: Distract Assailant (swift), Blink, G. Invis, Grease, Glitterdust
4) Throw alchemical flasks
5) Potion Belt (holds 10 vials, 10 gp)
6) Wands of Gravestrike and Golemstrike/ wand of Sniper's Strike
7) Backup Returning dagger
Even better if we can use Marrulurk in Sandstorm for free ranged feats.
Just Core:
1) Human helps with bonus feat
2) Blink, G. Invis, Grease, Glitterdust
4) Throw alchemical flasks (various types)
4) Pouch Belt to hold potions
5) Heward Handysack means draw new pouch belt if empty first
6) TWF/Rapid Shot
7) Backup Returning dagger
8) Quick Draw
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sneak attack is more effective in Pathfinder than 3.5, I don't understand what you're saying?
The main feature of the rogue was niche protection and how skills were chopped up so much that you needed 8+int to do things. 2 skills for stealth, 3 skills for perception, diplomacy was 2 skills, linguistics was 3 skills, Acrobatics was 3 skills.
Tumble got nerfed.
It doesn't really matter that more things can be sneak attacked since getting a sneak attack is harder.
The +4 to-hit on the fighter push the rogue back obscenely away from the to-hit ceiling.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's only power creep if option X and newer option Y do the exact same thing and are used in the exact same situations but Y has bigger numbers attached to it.
For example, the Nodachi is power creep. It's a Falchion that does more damage, can be used as either a slash or pierce weapon, and counters charging horsemen like a pike. The ONLY reason to use a Falchion after the release of Ultimate Combat is if your GM has banned the use of the Nodachi for it being out of place in his setting (or simply because it being blatantly superior to the Falchion is dumb).\
On the other hand, things like the Furious enchantment are /not/ power creep. While Furious is certainly superior for a Barbarian, it is completely useless for anyone else. If you're not raging you're going to pick up one of the options that Furious would otherwise replace.
...So yes, there is power creep in Pathfinder, but it's really not to the point that many of the people in this thread seem to suggest. It's certainly not to the point where I would think it's a major problem that needs addressing.
I don't find much power creep has occurred. There is little but it's minor on an overall level. You can sure find thing sthat power creep way past the rogue or fighter though if you use those classes as the benchmark. But if you average out all the class there really isn't much power creep. Nothing like I've seen in other games.
|
I don't think Power Creep has been that bad myself, a lot of books come out with interesting things. Sure, there's some outliers, but for the most part they don't make you THAT much better for the most part. Some things NEED Power Creep (Rogue/Monk/Fighter), and I think Paizo not having the demonic print schedule that 3.5 has allowed them to consider what they're putting out a bit more, as well as the more conservative stance they have on material they put out.
|
|
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".
But wasn't tome of battle one of the testing books for 4e with encounter based powers?
It sure was a huge power creep in 3.5, but with pathfinder classes, it is not so bad.
I am playing a Crusader/Oracle/Ruby red knight at this time, and the (melee build) Inquisitor that is my front line companion is now kicking my arse half the time in effectiveness and damage in melee.
Inquisitor 11
Crusader 7 / Oracle 1 / Ruby Red Knight 3
Before 10th level, there was no doubt that I was the master
Now, I am not. (I am greatly saddened...)
Since my DM is not allowing the 3rd party feat Touche! which gives a +1 to hit for every +1 damage sacrificed (kinda like a reverse power attack but better), my ability to hit can not be increased except by ability score increase, weapon enhancement bonuses, or conditional modifiers. And as we know, the Crusader is nothing if he cant hit.
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".
But wasn't tome of battle one of the testing books for 4e with encounter based powers?
It sure was a huge power creep in 3.5, but with pathfinder classes, it is not so bad.
I am playing a Crusader/Oracle/Ruby red knight at this time, and the (melee build) Inquisitor that is my front line companion is now kicking my arse half the time in effectiveness and damage in melee.
Inquisitor 11
Crusader 7 / Oracle 1 / Ruby Red Knight 3Before 10th level, there was no doubt that I was the master
Now, I am not. (I am greatly saddened...)Since my DM is not allowing the 3rd party feat Touche! which gives a +1 to hit for every +1 damage sacrificed (kinda like a reverse power attack but better), my ability to hit can not be increased except by ability score increase, weapon enhancement bonuses, or conditional modifiers. And as we know, the Crusader is nothing if he cant hit.
Nope.
Tome of Battle and 4E came from Orcus.It would be like comparing PF and 3.5. Both came from 3.0 D&D, but neither is the same.
Orcus is more like Tome of Battle where you (the three classes) can recover Encounter powers and there are few dailies (except for casters)
4E had the reverse: You can't recover encounter battles without a short rest and lots of Dailies.
4E is like a nerfed Tome of Battle so to speak.
Do you mean including all of the 3.5 stuff or not?
Remember that PF was originally pitched as being fully compatible with all of the 3.5 stuff.
My regular playing group has been playing with all of the 3.5 stuff since we started playing PF, so when I see these responses that are basically the equivalent of jumping up and down screaming "YOU *FOOL* YOU DO *NOT* MIX 3.5 AND PATHFINDER *EVARRRR*!!!11eleveni!!", I think it's sort of amusing.
My *suspicion* is that a lot of the people who pull this stunt when asked if PF option X, Y, or Z is overpowered (and the asker is mixing 3.5 with PF) do not actually own many or any of the 3.5 books. It's understandable that they don't want to hear about how their pet class, spell, or magic item doesn't play nice with a set of rules that they consider outmoded. So they jump up and down like rabid monkeys on the person asking the question -- the person with the *UNMITIGATED* *GALL* to be polluting the pure and pristine perfection of Pathfinder with the corrupt and polluted *FILTH* of *3.5* material.
All that aside, I see definite power creep since the core book. The new core classes (gunslinger, magus, alchemist, and summoner) have generated a LOT of discussion about how OP they are -- and not all of that discussion is unwarranted. I've seen it in the campaigns I run and play in to the point where some players (including myself, and I'm playing a sorceress who specializes in rainbow magic) have voluntarily nerfed our own characters because we could see how ridiculous things were getting.
Of course if you put all 3.5 stuff to the axe, there are less problems, but that's just it -- more material inevitably leads to more power. Looking at the rainbow themed spells I'm using for my sorceress that come from the 3.5 Spell Compendium (Rainbow Beam, Rainbow Blast, Prismatic Ray, etc), it would be sort of laughable to hear...
If you are trying to gauge power creep, I think you need to exclude 3.0/3.5 stuff from consideration, if only because Paizo wasn't responsible for most of that material, and it's a bit unfair to have them factor in every possible rule combination for rules developed by another company with a different design perspective that is mostly unavailalbe nowadays to a lot of Pathfinder players.
I would rate the power-creep as "I am looking forward to Pathfinder Second Edition."
-Matt
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.
Actually, it does. Power creep is measured by the best of the options people have, not by the worst or the average. Because if there is a better option, everyone will flock to it, and raise the overall power appropriately.
As a simple example, if I published a splat-book with new class ("Thaumaturge") that was just like a wizard in all respects except had a sorcerer's spell per day and full access to any spell from any list, that would be a substantial power creep irrespective of what was in the rest of the book. No one would want to play a mere wizard, as they would be eclipsed in a major aspect and would have no advantages.
Sure, that's only a better option for a Wizard. If I wanted to play a Paladin, it wouldn't help. But it's still a substantial upgrade.
What's weird in PF is the odd feat/trait/spell from some little played supplement, that when combined with THIS from that book, and THAT from this book, makes for something broken.
eg Orc Bloodline from orcs of Golarion, then Crossblooded Sorc= wizards with one level of Sorc just to get the +2 to every blasty spell.
This plays off what Orfamy sez above- some books have zero power creep- except one little thing that is a bazinga!
What's weird in PF is the odd feat/trait/spell from some little played supplement, that when combined with THIS from that book, and THAT from this book, makes for something broken.
eg Orc Bloodline from orcs of Golarion, then Crossblooded Sorc= wizards with one level of Sorc just to get the +2 to every blasty spell.
That's not that strange, is it? I mean, that's how one builds Pun-pun.
On the other hand, things like the Furious enchantment are /not/ power creep. While Furious is certainly superior for a Barbarian, it is completely useless for anyone else. If you're not raging you're going to pick up one of the options that Furious would otherwise replace.
Hm, that's strange. I could have sworn everyone thought 3.5's Divine Metamagic and nightsticks were power creep, but as they were completely useless for anyone that wasn't a cleric, I suppose they weren't power creep after all by that definition.