Power creep in PF, How would you rate it?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 400 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Arachnofiend wrote:
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.

Not quite. For example:

Quote:


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).

But let me turn that around and create a new weapon, the Yes-dachi, which is just like a nodachi but can also be used with weapon finesse. And elves get a racial untyped +1 to hit with it.

If you don't have the Weapon Finesse feat, there's no reason to choose the yes-dachi over the nodachi; they're equivalent. On the other hand, if you have weapon finesse or if you're an elf, then the yes-dachi is a clearly superior weapon.

The technical term for this is Pareto-inferior. The nodachi is a Pareto-inferior weapon.

So, basically, the nodachi is either equal or worse, depending upon the niche you're in. And so there's no reason to prefer the nodachi to the yes-dachi, and some niches where there's reason to prefer the yes-dachi.

Quote:
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.

Furious is Pareto-superior. It's certainly better for a specific niche (a barbarian) and otherwise irrelevant.

That's power creep.


If you're complaining about power creep in Pathfinder, you obviously never played RIFTS. Give that game a go, making sure you pay close attention to release dates of the books, while you do. I pretty much guarantee you will come back to this thread singing the praises of PF and kicking yourself for ever having thought that power creep was a concern.

Looking back on things, I sometimes wonder how our group continued playing that atrocity of a dog's breakfast for so long.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
born_of_fire wrote:
I pretty much guarantee you will come back to this thread singing the praises of PF and kicking yourself for ever having thought that power creep was a concern.

That tsunami was way worse than this tornado!


TOZ wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:
I pretty much guarantee you will come back to this thread singing the praises of PF and kicking yourself for ever having thought that power creep was a concern.
That tsunami was way worse than this tornado!

Eh, not all power creep is bad power creep.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Eh, not all power creep is bad power creep.

And not all cholesterol is bad cholesterol. That doesn't mean you stop balancing it.


Are wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:


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.

Yes, those were indeed, both power creep and unintended consequences. That's mostly what happens in PF, that this, than & the other thing were never thought of as a combo, thus "unintended consequences".

The 3.5 devs actually thought Nightsticks were gonna be used to get more Turning. It is to laff.


DrDeth wrote:
Are wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:


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.

Yes, those were indeed, both power creep and unintended consequences. That's mostly what happens in PF, that this, than & the other thing were never thought of as a combo, thus "unintended consequences".

Not sure how dazing spell/rod have unintened cosecuences beyond enemies being dazed.


TOZ wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:
I pretty much guarantee you will come back to this thread singing the praises of PF and kicking yourself for ever having thought that power creep was a concern.
That tsunami was way worse than this tornado!

Often, some perspective encourages folks to appreciate a thing a little more. For a real world example, I think of my job. Before I used other parts catalogues, I despised the Nissan catalogue. Now that I have experience with other catalogues, I realize that Nissan's is not all that bad in comparison. I just needed some perspective to appreciate it for what it is.

No parts catalogue is perfect but Nissan has a pretty good set up all told. Similarly, no game system is perfect but Pathfinder has a pretty good set up compared to what else is out there.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Are wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:


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.

Yes, those were indeed, both power creep and unintended consequences. That's mostly what happens in PF, that this, than & the other thing were never thought of as a combo, thus "unintended consequences".

Not sure how dazing spell/rod have unintened cosecuences beyond enemies being dazed.

Likely they forgot how much stronger Dazing is than other such effects. Though the base effect of daze is weak: it rarely resisted (no immunities usually).


I think in a system like pathfinder, one based on versatility, the more options you have the more specialized you can become as a character. Characters are now more flexible and able to do more things. The line between classes has become more blurred. I don't think this is necessarily "power creep" though, in most cases it is simply more options.


Starbuck_II wrote:


Likely they forgot how much stronger Dazing is than other such effects. Though the base effect of daze is weak: it rarely resisted (no immunities usually).

I would never say daze is weak, certainly weaker than stun but never weak.


Mike Franke wrote:
I think in a system like pathfinder, one based on versatility, the more options you have the more specialized you can become as a character. Characters are now more flexible and able to do more things. The line between classes has become more blurred. I don't think this is necessarily "power creep" though, in most cases it is simply more options.

More options is almost always power creep, unless the new options are clearly inferior to the old in all cases.

Think of a golf bag of weapons. 95% of the time you'll use your favorite. The only time you'll pull something else out is when that one weapon won't do what you want, but something else will. So it doesn't matter if 95% of the time, the second weapon is useless. 95% of the time it doesn't weaken you, and 5% of the time, it makes you stronger.

Power creep.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
I would never say daze is weak, certainly weaker than stun but never weak.

Frankly Dazing is far stronger than Stun. Stun may deny you your dex bonus and make you drop anything you are holding but the list of enemies immune to it is long. No creature type is immune to Daze.


For full casters, the power creep is mild, mostly horizontal. Not really a big deal outside corner cases that are known issues (dazing spell, paragon surge)

For Barbarians and Paladins creep has been moderate, bringing them a lot closer to casters in options and functionality.

For fighters, rogues and monks, creep has been too little too late. Frankly, I'd embrace power creep for these classes. They need it badly.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
born_of_fire wrote:
Often, some perspective encourages folks to appreciate a thing a little more.

No perspective on an ice cream truck crashing and spilling ice cream all over the road will make me feel better about my ice cream being on the ground.

Each person has their own feeling about if Pathfinder is ice cream or a parts catalogue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am imagining a parts catalogue made of ice cream, and a catalogue where you can order the parts to make ice cream. Thanks. Scoundrel.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:
Often, some perspective encourages folks to appreciate a thing a little more.

No perspective on an ice cream truck crashing and spilling ice cream all over the road will make me feel better about my ice cream being on the ground.

Each person has their own feeling about if Pathfinder is ice cream or a parts catalogue.

If you were under the crashed ice cream truck with a crushed pelvis I daresay that you would be less distraught about the frozen treats all over the road.

Most things are not judged in a vacuum but compared to other similar things. Have you played RIFTS or any other Palladium game? What other systems have you played that you could compare Pathfinder to? I have played a lot of different games over the last 30 years and, comparably speaking, Pathfinder has very little power creep. I think they have done a fairly commendable job of creating new options while still maintaining balance as new books are released.

There's nothing terribly wrong with putting on your curmudgeon hat and declaring Pathfinder has power creep because every game has some, it's largely unavoidable for the reasons others have mentioned already. If you want to say PF has an unmanageable amount of power creep though, I am going to ask in comparison to what.

Shadow Lodge

Glutton wrote:
I am imagining a parts catalogue made of ice cream, and a catalogue where you can order the parts to make ice cream. Thanks. Scoundrel.

I live to serve.


Inner sea combat, technology guide and the advance class guide alongside with several FAQs/erratas (was not there a nerf for the Ice tomb hex?) are now in the equation. Do the "farily mild" power creep veredict maintains?


Well, the Wizard is in the CRB

So if Core is 0, I'd say we're at... -1?


Well, it's good to know that we can't have an opinion on power creep on the game we know and play because some other game out there might have it worse. That totally corrects the problem with that game we're playing as opposed to the one we're not. (Sarc tag off)

Also, if someone asks for 'comparison' to do something, it's quite possible to compare Pathfinder to itself prior to the release of a supplement that increases power creep. Which is what most people are doing, as opposed to comparing it to GURPS or Palladium or the White Wolf monstrosities, etc, etc.

Personally, I see 'good' creep and 'bad' creep, the difference being only what brings things into balance. The former, say, buffs to the Rogue or Fighter, would be 'good' power creep. Things that twist things farther out of balance, say that increase the power of classes that are already in the lead would qualify as 'bad', as would having items that anyone can use that arguably render previous items obsolete (the Nodachi debate).


Nicos wrote:
Inner sea combat, technology guide and the advance class guide alongside with several FAQs/erratas (was not there a nerf for the Ice tomb hex?) are now in the equation. Do the "farily mild" power creep veredict maintains?

The power creep I am referring to as the problem with Palladium's RIFTS was that, with very little exaggeration, each publication pretty much made the previous publication obsolete. Any items or classes from the new book were almost always way better than any similar version from any previous book. Up until recently, I felt that Paizo had done a good job of avoiding this but now, with the ACG, I'm not so sure. The book seems rushed at best and contains a lot of powerful new options that make previous material all but obsolete.


Nicos wrote:
Inner sea combat, technology guide and the advance class guide alongside with several FAQs/erratas (was not there a nerf for the Ice tomb hex?) are now in the equation. Do the "farily mild" power creep veredict maintains?

Power creep has actually been rather mild. Summoners(The concept not the class) got a huge boost from Evolved Summons.

Fighters got some love and Monks with Pummeling Style are in a good place. The only class I feel that is STILL behind is the Rogue. I mean seriously NO new rogue talents?!


... Oh look, new options! Power got spread out to bring weaker classes in line! New classes too!

Surely this must all be power creep that will kill the game!

/sarcasm

Like has been said before. There's good and bad creep. Where people draw the line, depends on the person. I have yet to see any really OP classes, feats, or combinations hit my table that I have yet to find a way to deal with. Every "OMGPOWER" option I've observed, has had fairly easy counters if you are willing to use them as a GM. As an aside to this point, I do not consider PFS to be Pathfinder as it is in the books, as it consists of mostly bastardized house rules by its own admission; nor do I generally run APs or Modules.

IMO, the power creep has simply been spread out more. There are lots of 'huh?' going on with typos and lost bits (in a fashion similar to many witch hexes, IE. "What's the range!? What's going on here!?"). Are there going to be really good synergies with all the new stuff? Sure. Is there any situation where you can't deal with it (outside of pfs)? No.

New options and spread-out power does not a power leap make.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

#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.

Because we're not groups of weirdos gathered around a table on saturday night talking in funny voices, cackling about bad movie references, and rolling a ton of strange pieces of plastic. Nope. Not silly at all.


Yall had some interesting topic restarters. I mean the posts you guys are referencing are from March.


Nicos wrote:
Inner sea combat, technology guide and the advance class guide alongside with several FAQs/erratas (was not there a nerf for the Ice tomb hex?) are now in the equation. Do the "farily mild" power creep veredict maintains?

No I don't Think so. I think powercreep is real and problematic.

I think the powercreep started with the APG (Alcehmist and summoner) and then with UM, the magus ability to go nova didn’t help.

One of the reasons (but not the main reason) our DM burned out and dumped us was because of the alchemist.

The alchemist giving everyone a potion of shield (and other stuff) and the Druid buffing everyone with barkskin meant the monsters could only hit us on a natural 20. Not to mention the alchemists ability to go nova. The samurai in the Party was impossible to take down. Silly high AC, Resolve and improved iron will and buffs made him unstoppable. Resolve was crazy good and he never ran out of Resolve. Add an animal companion and an oracle of war and the team was almost unstoppable.

Now we have the ACG with the Arcanist. Even though I like the class I do feel stuff like Quicken study and Conterspell abilities are just too good. At the same time there is a definite lack for some of the core classes.

I personally think it is time for a Pathfinder 1.5. Perhaps not a totally new edition, but a cleaned up Pathfinder.


Really? Out of all the new classes to complain about, the Alchemist and Magus? Two decidedly middle of the road reasonably balanced mediocre classes?

But you're giving abominations like the Witch free passes?


Too much for casters, not enough for non-casters.


anlashok wrote:

Really? Out of all the new classes to complain about, the Alchemist and Magus? Two decidedly middle of the road reasonably balanced mediocre classes?

But you're giving abominations like the Witch free passes?

We haven't had any Witch at our table.

I wouldn't call Alchemist and Magus balanced and mediocre classes, but I’m aware that different gaming styles fit some classes better than others.

What might cause a problem at your table might not be problematic at ours and vice versa.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You call it power creep. I call it options for games of different power levels. If something's too strong, i'll ban or houserule it. If I want a high-powered game, strong options are welcome.


Zark wrote:

The alchemist giving everyone a potion of shield (and other stuff)

Potion of shield are illegal.


Nicos wrote:
I am curious, IF you took the Core rulebook as the zero point how would you rate the power creep in the later books?

Very slow at first, but now with Mythic rules, Unleashed, the Technology guide, Hybrid classes and everything that comes with them... I'd say its accelerating rapidly.


Nicos wrote:
Zark wrote:
The alchemist giving everyone a potion of shield (and other stuff)
Potion of shield are illegal.

Alchemists can do it.

- - -

Anyway, power creep...

Currently, the power creep in Pathfinder is at the same time too much and not enough.

Casters get all sort of cool (and overpowered) options in every book. Dazing Spell, Fast Study, Divine Protection, you name it...

For martial classes, though, power creep has been a slow, slow crawl. They occasionally get something useful, but mostly, they are still extremely limited, and when they do get something slightly powerful, Paizo makes sure to use an errata-bomb to Crane Wing it to hell.


Indeed, a potion cannot be made of any spell with a range of personal.


Nicos wrote:
Zark wrote:

The alchemist giving everyone a potion of shield (and other stuff)

Potion of shield are illegal.

Extracts of shield are not (with the appropriate discovery). That may be what he meant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Zark wrote:

The alchemist giving everyone a potion of shield (and other stuff)

Potion of shield are illegal.

Infusion Extracts of Shield are not though, which I assume is what he meant. That being said Alchemist is extremely middle of the pack power level wise, but quite useful making them my favorite PF balance point.


Zark wrote:

We haven't had any Witch at our table.

I wouldn't call Alchemist and Magus balanced and mediocre classes, but I’m aware that different gaming styles fit some classes better than others.

What might cause a problem at your table might not be problematic at ours and vice versa.

Alchemist and Magus are both solidly T3 (Though frankly I'm not sure if the Magus is even that). Nothing particularly overpowering. A decent array of options without being too pigeonholed into a single role.

Sure, you may not like them, but to single them out as the two problem classes just because you don't enjoy them feels... odd.


Artemis Moonstar wrote:
As an aside to this point, I do not consider PFS to be Pathfinder as it is in the books, as it consists of mostly bastardized house rules by its own admission;

<Quizzical_Dog.jpg>


Anzyr wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Zark wrote:

The alchemist giving everyone a potion of shield (and other stuff)

Potion of shield are illegal.
Infusion Extracts of Shield are not though, which I assume is what he meant

Yes, that is what I meant.


anlashok wrote:
Zark wrote:

We haven't had any Witch at our table.

I wouldn't call Alchemist and Magus balanced and mediocre classes, but I’m aware that different gaming styles fit some classes better than others.

What might cause a problem at your table might not be problematic at ours and vice versa.

Alchemist and Magus are both solidly T3 (Though frankly I'm not sure if the Magus is even that). Nothing particularly overpowering. A decent array of options without being too pigeonholed into a single role.

Sure, you may not like them, but to single them out as the two problem classes just because you don't enjoy them feels... odd.

Stop putting words in my mouth and stop acting as if your opinions are law written in stone.


Zark wrote:
anlashok wrote:
Zark wrote:

We haven't had any Witch at our table.

I wouldn't call Alchemist and Magus balanced and mediocre classes, but I’m aware that different gaming styles fit some classes better than others.

What might cause a problem at your table might not be problematic at ours and vice versa.

Alchemist and Magus are both solidly T3 (Though frankly I'm not sure if the Magus is even that). Nothing particularly overpowering. A decent array of options without being too pigeonholed into a single role.

Sure, you may not like them, but to single them out as the two problem classes just because you don't enjoy them feels... odd.

Stop putting words in my mouth and stop acting as if your opinions are law written in stone.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT LURKS IN MY HEART


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Compared to most games I've played in the past Pathfinder has been very good and keeping power creep to minimum. For how many books with new classes, more feats, more spells, more monster, more magic items the creep really hasn't impacted much.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT LURKS IN MY HEART

LOL

Sovereign Court

Power creep exists, but I don't find it so bad, as long as I ignore the rules fora.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Meh, it's kinda hard to take this forum seriously when stuff like dervish dance (horizontal creep at best) get put in the same category as vertical power creep like daze etc. Seeing as no matter how much theorycraft and actual play experience you get some people would rather burn their friend then admit they are wrong it makes it hard to properly gauge the creep of pathfinder. And yes, I did take it as an objective fact, its long past the time we admit that.

Now, I think creep depend on books. The ACG despite the glaring inadequacy of his editing has open very little space for powercreep. There is some outliers that seems to creep a little more, but in general it doesn't change much what was thought as powerful before.


Zark wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Inner sea combat, technology guide and the advance class guide alongside with several FAQs/erratas (was not there a nerf for the Ice tomb hex?) are now in the equation. Do the "farily mild" power creep veredict maintains?
The alchemist giving everyone a potion of shield (and other stuff) and the Druid buffing everyone with barkskin meant the monsters could only hit us on a natural 20.

The cause of this issue, or at least this is what has caused the same issue at other tables I've seen, is that the bestiaries are terrible. The enemies are designed for the most brain dead, newbie player to have hard time to beat. Simple as that.

You get a group of functional characters working together and you can normally easily defeat most enemies in the bestiaries IME. You get optimized characters, using strong tactics, and working together like a machine and you will steamroll most enemies in that book.

It's just one of those issues tied in with the game being very complex/ivory tower, so it would almost be irresponsible for the developers to assume optimized characters.


Well when reading the core book I read up to druid and then all content from that point on seems weaker until we hit the wizard after which all content unrelated to those two classes seems to be beneath these two in terms of power so it's more to me the evening out of power between classes.


I know this is an old thread, but...

The problem isn't power creep. It's that Pathfinder decided (rightly so) that there were way too many prestige classes, and ended up duplicating those problems by adding new classes with nearly every book. The end result (class/option glut) is the same.

They hit the right note with class archetypes, and should have stuck with that. There's not reason a Ninja couldn't be a Rogue archetype, or even prestige class, for example.

It's funny that now I have to use the SRD because I have so many books with so many options/feats/classes/etc spread out everywhere, that it's the only way I can effectively reference them. Most of our players haven't even bothered purchasing even the CRB, let alone the other stuff, simply because it's way too much needless info.


Ninja is a Rogue archetype, it's just so many changes they figured completely rewriting what it gets would be easier to read. That's what alternate classes are.

351 to 400 of 400 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Power creep in PF, How would you rate it? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion