Disclaimer: I am not trying to be controversial
So one of the key issues with 3.5 was the incredibly large volume of splat books and they were rather poorly controlled centrally. This lead to a lot of things becoming quite strange, requirements to prestige class etc.
Now Pathfinder has been out over 8 years now meaning lots of material is now out.
My question/observation is more about things that have come in later books that should be available to classes published earlier OR seem to invalidate earlier options.
When I first thought of posting this I am sure I had more examples. The main one(s) I can think of:
- The vigilante talent that allows them to tumble through a square making an attack as part of the action that counts as a sneak attack. It seems like this really should be available to the rogue
- I can't immediately picture what advantage a ranger has over the Slayer that was released later. The only thing I can think of is if you reliably know what (and where) you might be fighting for a large portion of a campaign
Is this something that has occurred to anyone else (perhaps with any other examples)
I do note that there are clearly some archetypes that are functionally replaced by hybrid classes (brawler, free hand fighter, detective etc). But I don't think this is quite the same as Slayer vs. Ranger
As always when I post I am quite happy to be set right if my interpretations are off or overly cherry-picked
Well, do Slayer's get spells? Because that can make a major difference in a character build.
Honestly, I'm fine with a certain amount of creep like this. If Paizo can create a truly awesome class that is still balanced enough to play... I say go for it. Common consensus is that core Rogue sucked. I do NOT want a system to continually nerf future products to keep a class like Core Rogue 'competative'.
I love getting new classes, even if the mechanics get overwhelming sometimes. There may be 20 new classes I don't care about... but then there's something like the Swashbuckler that I've been waiting years for. IT's my problem with jumping systems or rebooting editions... I'm tired of starting over with the core 7 classes when there are SOOOO many character concepts I want to play that don't fit those boxes.
I do like the idea of things like swashbuckler, bloodrager, warpriest etc. They are common things that people want to play and the archetypes didn't quite make work
Thanks for the point on Ranger spells! I had completely forgotten that because it has been a while since I have seen a ranger in a high enough level game to get them
I also agree on not needing to balance to the originals. In fact the solution of unchained rogue is far more elegant
I suppose I was just wondering if there were any other budding examples (but probably should look at the various unchained threads throughout the board when I get time)
I think there are typically more power spikes than creeps.
Also the vigilante example is another thing I think the paizo people have been doing, where-in some of the mechanics that were released in the core book are needlessly clunky and arguably anti fun. Which were than slowly fixed or altered in later books. Like facilitating sneak attack builds and the snake bite brawler which lets you move and feint as a move action, facilitating some fun feint builds.
Now to talk about some other things I think people sometimes call power creep which I wouldn't.
For example the buffs fighters have scene and in the weapon and armor master books or the blood mutations for sorcs and bloodragers.
These are examples of buffs to classes, but not to the strongest classes of their type, sorcs are behind things like wizards and witches, so when they get buffed it closes a gap, not creates a new most powerful option. Same with fighters, it brings them inline with other martial classes. Like barbs for example.
What I would call spikes are things like the release of the summoner and the pact wizard (why on earth this archetype got made I don't know) and the publication of feats like Sacred Geometry. However I wouldn't say they constitute a trend, which is what I would argue power creep is. A trend of increasingly powerful options.
A good place to look for this is when an archetype is released that is pretty much generically superior to the base class.
As evidence you can look to the Occult classes, the most recent publication of a new bulk set of classes, if their was large power creep it would surely be here?
But it isn't
- The Mesmerist is generally considered the weakest class of its entire chassis.
- The Spiritualist is the weakest dedicated pet class (the others being Druids, Hunters and Summoner)
- The Occultist is strong but not really mark-ably stronger than Alchemists or Inquisitors, they just have different niches.
- The Medium befuddles a lot of us but is generally an unpopular class and beyond the champion spirit for a dip or the very earliest levels is not particularly remarkable in terms of power.
- The Kineticist while controversial is considered by as many people unplayably weak as it is considered by others game brakingly strong. I think its a little confusing and perhaps circumvents some of the assumptions some people make about the game (magic runs out) but they aren't actually particularly strong or weak.
- Finally the psychic is the only full caster class in the book and is spontaneous, immediately putting it behind some other full casters in the minds of many, secondly its actually casting from a (generally considered) worse spell list than the wizard sorc, arguably putting it behind some other spontaneous casters.
So no I wouldn't say the game had general power creep, I think there are odd little spikes and also a sort of balancing up process going on so that options are getting stronger, but typically they're weaker options.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is less "Power Creep" and more "Have a better understanding of balance now".
- The vigilante talent that allows them to tumble through a square making an attack as part of the action that counts as a sneak attack. It seems like this really should be available to the rogue
It is. Stalker Talent was released in the same book.
- I can't immediately picture what advantage a ranger has over the Slayer that was released later. The only thing I can think of is if you reliably know what (and where) you might be fighting for a large portion of a campaign
Spellcasting, an animal companion and stronger at skills than the slayer. The skill power of rangers often gets overlooked, particularly since it is combined with spellcasting and an animal companion. And this does not meaningfully impact their combat prowess either.
Is this something that has occurred to anyone else
No. The only class that experienced any amount of power creep was monk and rogue, and that was as a result of trying to find alternatives to something horridly broken. Then they released Unchained and everything was fixed. Other classes have seen power spikes with more content but often those are classes that were already pretty weak. Fighter, monk, rogue and warpriests were pretty weak historically and have been on an upward trend for months.
Meanwhile, most of the classes that were already good remain so and haven't received any major power spikes in years.
Don't confuse buffs for power creep. The two are very distinct.
Yeah, just on the specific topic of the ranger...
Favored Enemy does give bigger bonuses if you stack them all onto one type, and Instant Enemy (at level 10) can make it so you can apply it to anyone. So it can be better than Studied Target, but it takes longer to be able to apply it to anyone, so there is a versatility cost vs the slayer.
Spells and animal companion are another big part too.
And FWIW, there is basically an archetype that gives Rangers Studied Target as well.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Play Core only for awhile and the power creep becomes glaringly obvious.
A well built Core group played reasonably well CAN successfully take on most Adventure Paths, Modules and PFS scenarios.
An average or sub-par group using the most current options can power through almost all Adventure Paths, Modules and PFS scenarios without bothering to play intelligently.
The Power Creep is very, very real. Some of it (Unchained Rogue) is very good as it brings sub-par options up to snuff. Other parts of it (any and all power increases to the base Druid or Wizard) are just silly.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to note, are you guys using correct definition of the power creep? .-. Like, power creep isn't "new stuff is powerful!", power creep is "new stuff is powerful in a way that makes old stuff worthless!" such as "Hey, this new card is same level as this old card and does the same thing, but its every stat wise better!" kind of thing when new stuff at lower levels is more powerful than old stuff at those same levels.
So basically, new archetypes/feats/whatever allowing new ways to solve old problems isn't power creep, but something like "Hey, this is just better version of fireball, why would anyone ever learn fireball when you could learn this one instead" is.
Like, referring to above post, "These new classes make this old ap easier!" isn't power creep, something like "why would you play vanilla rogue when slayer/investigator can do same thing rogue does, but better?" can be.(not going to argue whether or not its the case, I have replaced vanilla rogue with unchained one anyway)
so the question is, does the brawler make the fighter and monk worthless?
|
|
Yep, that is what determines whether brawler is power creep or not.
Just to note my point, here is pic of power creep example from Hearthstone As you can see, cards are exactly the same, but latter one is more powerful. So why would you ever choose the former one when latter one is clearly better?
Hearthstone has tones of examples of it xD
Just to note, are you guys using correct definition of the power creep? .-. Like, power creep isn't "new stuff is powerful!", power creep is "new stuff is powerful in a way that makes old stuff worthless!"
Power creep as I've heard it defined is when a player with more material to draw from tends to make a more powerful character, meaning that the same adventures becomes easier over time as new books are released.
This type of power creep is pretty much inevitable. Unless every option is perfectly balanced (or weak), stronger options will become available over time.
For example, archers used to be weak against certain types of DR. But now they have access to blunt arrows and Clustered Shots so that's less of a problem.
This doesn't make them automatically more powerful than a druid, but druids now have more choices too; more spells, more companions, more wild shape forms.
But I think Paizo have done a fairly good job of resisting the temptation to make all new classes a little bit more powerful in every new book in order to sell them to powergamers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is only one direction for games that don't cull the most powerful options, and that is that they will gradually gain more power.
Magic: The Gathering is a grand example. While it doesn't advance in power leaps and bounds each set, if you want things to be fresh and new they have to be somewhat exciting. Exciting things are good, and generally mean that the most powerful builds possible will increase in number or become more powerful.
The fact people can make a 20d6+(big number) fireball at like.. level 5 or 10 or w/e is a good example.
That said, I find it strange it matters in a game like this. Players think "I need to make the most powerful guy possible!" and don't realize that they're only really competing with eachother. Furthermore, the GM will adjust difficult to some degree to suit the party (if they're any good) meaning that while you're fighting a harder thing.. you really didn't increase your power level a ton relative to your challenges then.
It's weird to me that a game where I can literally make stuff up that controls, kills, or injurs the players, that people are concerned with classes being too good or too bad.
This really boils down to intra-party competition rather than ease of getting through a campaign.
Some fights that a CR calculator say are "impossible" or "very difficult" are exactly right for my players based on their class abilities and what not, and others that are "Easy" or "Normal" are brutal because of the situation or mismatched ability sets/spells.
I really hate to lift the veil on this, but it really is a treadmill that ends in nihilism lol.. Make the character you want, your party will appreciate what you bring to it; and don't make a big deal about intra-party power differences. Fill the niches that it needs and you'll be cherished.
Furthermore, the GM will adjust difficult to some degree to suit the party (if they're any good) meaning that while you're fighting a harder thing.. you really didn't increase your power level a ton relative to your challenges then.
A lot of GMs are inexperienced (so just rely on the CR guidelines), or they don't have time to individually tailor encounters in the adventure they're running, or they have a simulationist philosophy that says it's not their job to change the world for the players; it's the players' job to overcome the adventure.
Or they're in PFS and they're not allowed to adjust the difficulty.
Furthermore, the GM will adjust difficult to some degree to suit the party (if they're any good) meaning that while you're fighting a harder thing.. you really didn't increase your power level a ton relative to your challenges then.A lot of GMs are inexperienced (so just rely on the CR guidelines), or they don't have time to individually tailor encounters in the adventure they're running, or they have a simulationist philosophy that says it's not their job to change the world for the players; it's the players' job to overcome the adventure.
Or they're in PFS and they're not allowed to adjust the difficulty.
Fair points, but I feel like CR is so.. "fuzzy." F.E.Small Town Guard
That guy is *brutal* for an official CR 1/3. Compare him with the CR1 Giant Ant. When the giant ant is:
* Less HP
* Similar (+1) AC
* Less Damage
* Less Chance to Hit
* No ranged attack
* Is dumb instead of a human intelligence
If they were both CR1, it would still show the variance problem.. but one's a CR1/3. I get that I'm not gonna be changing paizo's rules for PFS with this post, but I feel obligated to point out how disparate/random CR's seem to be officially.
_____
I somewhat adhere to the simulationist thing, but if your players are powerful enough that some encounters are wholly pointless, then I don't know why you'd run it. I see it as fine when occasionally they'll trounce some little guy for the purposes of letting them know they're in an undead area, or to show them their growth. At the same time, wasting 5 minutes drawing an area, rolling initiative, moving once or twice, describing the scene, and then they just swing once and it's over.. seems like a waste.
That said, I definitely do try to allow the party "harder" things to avoid and easier things to kill, giving them the option of nigh-suicide attempts vs standard or less difficulty (but often with skill checks gating it so it's skills/thinking/puzzles vs combat kinda thing)
_____
That all said you are 100% correct and what I posted above is subjective and doesn't refute your point; just shows that I find those positions to be nonsensical to some degree.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So one of the key issues with 3.5 was the incredibly large volume of splat books and they were rather poorly controlled centrally. This lead to a lot of things becoming quite strange, requirements to prestige class etc.
I think it's equally true to say that the original 11 core classes were poorly-balanced against each other. This meant that a new class could appear overpowered if compared with a Fighter, underpowered if compared to a Cleric, and roughly balanced if compared to a Bard.
Pathfinder improved the balance substantially, but the discrepancy between the core 11 still exists.
- The vigilante talent that allows them to tumble through a square making an attack as part of the action that counts as a sneak attack. It seems like this really should be available to the rogue
Case in point, many people strongly believe the Rogue was underpowered to begin with and should have gotten more powers.
Yep, that is what determines whether brawler is power creep or not.
Just to note my point, here is pic of power creep example from Hearthstone As you can see, cards are exactly the same, but latter one is more powerful. So why would you ever choose the former one when latter one is clearly better?
Strangely enough, I've actually seen this exact example before, but as an example of something that isn't power creep. The reason is that a 3 cost with 5/1 was obscenely weak to begin with. A quick check on the Heartstone wiki indicates Magma Rager was considered the worst card in the original set. Thus, an improved version isn't power creep because it's not displacing any existing strategies. A little Googling got me usage statistics on these two cards, and Magma Rager is actually used more than Ice Rager (0.29% to 0.1%), which indicates to me that neither are considered playable and thus the stunt factor of using the "worst card in the game" makes the weaker one more appealing.
A good example of power creep from Pathfinder is the Teleportation focused school Wizard. The Conjurer is already one of the best specialist options for a Wizard, which is arguably the best class in the game. The Teleportation focused school replaces the weakest power in the Conjuration school with an extremely powerful and versatile ability, a massive upgrade to what was already one of the game's best options.
Now, I actually think power creep in Pathfinder has been relatively well handled. Given the frequency of new content and how many permutations of rules interaction there can be, it's actually been relatively consistent. You could build a large variety of core-only characters that would perform just fine in today's Pathfinder, and that's way better than can be said of most games 8 years into their lifespan.
Yep, that is what determines whether brawler is power creep or not.
Just to note my point, here is pic of power creep example from Hearthstone As you can see, cards are exactly the same, but latter one is more powerful. So why would you ever choose the former one when latter one is clearly better?
To be fair, I think it was said somewhere that the Ice Rager was supposed to be an "unchained" Magma Rager, due to how weak the Magma Rager card is.
I think there are typically more power spikes than creeps.
Also the vigilante example is another thing I think the paizo people have been doing, where-in some of the mechanics that were released in the core book are needlessly clunky and arguably anti fun. Which were than slowly fixed or altered in later books. Like facilitating sneak attack builds and the snake bite brawler which lets you move and feint as a move action, facilitating some fun feint builds.
Now to talk about some other things I think people sometimes call power creep which I wouldn't.
For example the buffs fighters have scene and in the weapon and armor master books or the blood mutations for sorcs and bloodragers.
These are examples of buffs to classes, but not to the strongest classes of their type, sorcs are behind things like wizards and witches, so when they get buffed it closes a gap, not creates a new most powerful option. Same with fighters, it brings them inline with other martial classes. Like barbs for example.
What I would call spikes are things like the release of the summoner and the pact wizard (why on earth this archetype got made I don't know) and the publication of feats like Sacred Geometry. However I wouldn't say they constitute a trend, which is what I would argue power creep is. A trend of increasingly powerful options.
A good place to look for this is when an archetype is released that is pretty much generically superior to the base class.
As evidence you can look to the Occult classes, the most recent publication of a new bulk set of classes, if their was large power creep it would surely be here?
But it isn't- The Mesmerist is generally considered the weakest class of its entire chassis.
- The Spiritualist is the weakest dedicated pet class (the others being Druids, Hunters and Summoner)
- The Occultist is strong but not really mark-ably stronger than Alchemists or Inquisitors, they just have different niches.
- The Medium befuddles a lot of us but is generally an unpopular...
Thanks for this detailed analysis
At the risk of opening a can of worms, why is the Kineticst controversial? I just see it as arguably unnecessary and pandering to fans of one manga/tv program (unless I am misunderstanding)
So one of the key issues with 3.5 was the incredibly large volume of splat books and they were rather poorly controlled centrally. This lead to a lot of things becoming quite strange, requirements to prestige class etc.I think it's equally true to say that the original 11 core classes were poorly-balanced against each other. This meant that a new class could appear overpowered if compared with a Fighter, underpowered if compared to a Cleric, and roughly balanced if compared to a Bard.
Pathfinder improved the balance substantially, but the discrepancy between the core 11 still exists.
I pretty strongly agree with this. The balancing of later classes shows more fine tuning for making a class good. It isn't hard to compare Fighter and Avenger Vigilante and find one lacking (definitely the Vigilante has more versatility overall), but the baseline of Fighter has always been fairly weak compared to other classes. Short of a rework, it might stay that way (of course, we have AAT and AWT, but many people are of two-minds about that and it's balance)
Case in point, many people strongly believe the Rogue was underpowered to begin with and should have gotten more powers.
- The vigilante talent that allows them to tumble through a square making an attack as part of the action that counts as a sneak attack. It seems like this really should be available to the rogue
It technically did. While not all of the powers of a Stalker vigilante, Stalker Talent does not restrict you to just stalker specific talents, but all talents not otherwise restricted to avenger. Technically speaking, the vigilante has increased the effectiveness of rogues as well in some fun ways.
|
At the risk of opening a can of worms, why is the Kineticst controversial? I just see it as arguably unnecessary and pandering to fans of one manga/tv program (unless I am misunderstanding)
One? There are many examples and inspirations for the kineticist. All day blasting is something everyone can get behind. Some people don't like that they fuel their most powerful abilities by taking nonlethal damage, though.
Well basically because it get things that last all day and don't run out the knee jerk reaction is THATS TOO STRONG
The most obvious one is all day flight at level 6 which air kineticists get, and the fact they can blast all day as well.
If you brake this down though its not really that impressive.
For one, the blast whilst good doesn't really out scale other ranged damage options like archery and Alchemist bombs (particularly once they get fast bombs).
Then look at the flight thing and people say a sorc could only fly for 24 minutes and that would be all its spells for the day, ergo perma flight is broken.
But thats a rather off way of looking at things, because the kineticst is using a utility talent, of which they have 3 at that level to gain access to flight, and have to take another which isn't very good as a pre-req.
So really to achieve perma flight they're spending 2/3 of their utility based resources (and thats not per day resources, thats permanent class feature allocation, like a rage power or a revelation or a hex) to achieve it. And for either 2 or 4 levels one of them is mostly sitting their as a pre-req for something they don't yet have, which is either 50% or 100% of their utility talents.
So yeah Kineticists get some powerful abilities, but they don't get many and they don't come cheep. Its just people are used to thinking that magical abilities should run out.
People also don't seem to realize that a druid could fly around as a small air elemental for 12 hours a day without expending a single spell slot and still be able to cast while doing it, and be better at flying and not have to make some permanent decisions as to class feature allocation to do it. And they could do that in core. So yeah, I think its a fuss over nothing personally.
Yes the spirtiualist is not really broken but I enjoyed gming for it. I do not think kinesticist in overpowered from the ones I played with. The spiritualist is not really overpowered except maybe at level 1 and fighting goblins or kobolds that can't do any damage because of its DR.
True their are some odd corner cases where the phantom seems unusually powerful.
I played one in a one shot at level 5 when my phantom solo'd a gibbering mouther which was meant to be a road bump for the party.
Thanks to everyone for the discussion points.
I was just interested and there seems to be a general view that whilst there is maybe some creep it is not drastic and game breaking
Some hybrids invalidate archetypes but they don't invalidate whole classes
I also did not know about Stalker talent...
|
People also don't seem to realize that a druid could fly around as a small air elemental for 12 hours a day without expending a single spell slot and still be able to cast while doing it, and be better at flying and not have to make some permanent decisions as to class feature allocation to do it. And they could do that in core. So yeah, I think its a fuss over nothing personally.
Lets not forget they also eventually get complete immunity to criticals and sneak attack while in air elemental form. Much better than the 5% per burn the kineticist is getting. That's saved my druid from more than a few ambushes/greataxe crits.
Yeah I generally think that the occult classes are fine aside from maybe the mesmerist which I think actually struggles early on.
|
Fighter, monk, rogue and warpriests were pretty weak historically and have been on an upward trend for months.
* Unchained fighter is unquestionably better, although the standard-action cost of unlimbering (Su) supernatural Advanced Weapon Training abilities is irksome.
* Unchained rogue is also noticeably improved: it saves you a feat and a +1 (Agility) upgrade to a weapon (more if you TWF); it's solid if you're a finesse dude. (Strength rogues get nothing from unchained.)
* Unchained monk is a mixed bag; many of the chained archetypes were never "weak" in the first place (with some considered the most powerful martials in the game), and the unchained version has a lot of overt as well as more hidden traps (dumped will saves, things that used to be class features now cost ki, and extra ki attacks now must be made with unarmed strike as opposed to with any monk weapon, the class is still a slave to AoMF and still can't enchant clothing as armor).
* Warpriest...I can't see that these were ever weak at all unless the comparison was to straight caster rather than martials, whom they can mop the floor with. The ability to pop off +3/+3 Luck bonuses via swift Divine Favor at 3nd level is flat-out sick.
There is no Unchained Fighter.
If you mean the love the fighters got with Weapon Master and Armor Master books then yes they got substantially better.
Unchained Monk is better than most core monks, but there were a few specific builds that really excelled and could do more than an average built Unchained Monk.
Warpriest was a great class from the day it dropped. The ability to self buff and the scaling weapon meant it could make builds that were interesting in what weapon they used. The swift action buffing put it on par or above most full BAB classes. Hell, they're up there for #1 damage dealers (archery) with fighters and inquisitors.
Warpriests were never weak.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the Unchained Monk was necessitated, not because there weren't powerful (archetyped) chained monk builds, but because they don't really feel or play very much like the classic martial arts fantasy monk. Part of the draw of the "monk" class is that Gordon Liu, Bruce Lee, etc. archetype of the unarmed, agile, punching guy/gal.
So when your monk builds use a bow and arrow, or your Sohei is fighting from horseback wearing armor, or you're a grappler first and foremost you might have an effective Pathfinder character, but you're not really fulfilling the fantasy of the monk class. So the UMonk was good from that perspective.
That's the best reason to alter, augment, or patch classes with future material, after all- the class doesn't fulfill the fantasy that the player has when they choose it.
...
My question/observation is more about things that have come in later books that should be available to classes published earlier OR seem to invalidate earlier options.
...
To me there is a lack of "updating" which is not really power creep but ties in to the OP.
I'd have really loved to have an unchained ninja as well as unchained rage for bloodragerd. Of course this is doable quite easily with house rules if the GM agrees but not for PFS.
I think when people say Unchained Fighter they are referring the Stamina System which suggests fighters get the Stamina for free.
Another thing that really really needs to be considered in discussions of balance is the idea that 'it cant be better than base book significantly'. Where does that leave the things that were just BAD in base book. Bypassing dodge and mobility as feat prereqs is GOOD, bypassing combat expertise as a gatekeeper to maneuvers is GOOD. Improving classes like rogue fighter and monk is good to do. If their options aren't significantly better than the core option, they're just not up to snuff.
Strangely enough, I've actually seen this exact example before, but as an example of something that isn't power creep. The reason is that a 3 cost with 5/1 was obscenely weak to begin with. A quick check on the Heartstone wiki indicates Magma Rager was considered the worst card in the original set. Thus, an improved version isn't power creep because it's not displacing any existing strategies. A little Googling got me usage statistics on these two cards, and Magma Rager is actually used more than Ice Rager (0.29% to 0.1%), which indicates to me that neither are considered playable and thus the stunt factor of using the "worst card in...Yep, that is what determines whether brawler is power creep or not.
Just to note my point, here is pic of power creep example from Hearthstone As you can see, cards are exactly the same, but latter one is more powerful. So why would you ever choose the former one when latter one is clearly better?
A small thing to note is that Ice Rager has worse play stats because TGT Rotated out of standard which is why the card has a lower play rate. So, unless you want to play Wild instead of Standard, you need to play Magma Rager.
However, regardless both of those cards are quite bad for three reasons. 1: Lack of text, 2: low health, 3: Low health continued. No text means that when these cards come into play they do nothing to augment the state of the board. This is bad because there are plenty of 3 mana cards that, in addition to creating a body on the board, also do other things. Secondly, low health means the creature is easily removable by any spell. A number of classes have 1 mana cards that can remove your three mana creature, resulting in a net loss of 2 mana. Third, low health means the rager can be easily traded with by a lower cost card. A number of 1 mana minions and nearly all 2 mana minions can deal 2 damage, meaning that the opponent can easily trade away their 1-2 mana minions into your 3 mana minion and then play a 3 mana minion of their own. Basically, what I am trying to say is that both cards are really really bad. Ice Rager is an improvement, but not a substantial enough of an improvement to make the Rager any less terrible.
Its like if 1% of Peasents suddenly got d8, 3/4ths bab, and Int+4 skills instead of d6, 1/2, and 2+Int skills. That is great and all, but it doesn't matter because they are peasants. Sure, they are better than other peasants, but that has no effect on the game as a whole because everyone else is still better than them.
If the Power Creep doesn't raise the power ceiling then it isn't actual creep. It doesn't matter if an option is released that is better than another option if, ultimately, both are still bad. Nor does it matter if an option is released that takes a badly done concept and makes it usable. Power Creep exclusively applies when an option is added that makes a new or existing option better than all other options. This is why actual examples of Power Creep are difficult to find.
|
|
I would argue that they would still count considering game is composed of random card drops right, so back when both cards were in rotation, if you were to get both of them to choose from then one of them is just plain useless. Even if both are comparatively useless to everything else. Either way, even if they aren't true example, I think its good way to demonstrate it since as far as I'm aware, power creep isn't about shifting whole metagame by new op options and is more about invalidating old options by making them feel completely pointless in comparison. I'm not sure what is term for the other thing, but its not power creep as far as I'm aware <_< Still, maybe I should brush my memory and check that extra credits video again, I remember it doing pretty good job summing it up but I haven't seen it ages so I could have forgotten most of it by now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not personally convinced that power creep actually matters in a cooperative storytelling game. As far as I'm concerned, the only real downside (since it's not like you need to keep buying books to "keep up" since there are SRDs and the most broken stuff is in the CRB anyway) is that you end up with a party that is woefully unbalanced so that some people hog the spotlight while others feel useless.
Of course, that's a thing that was possible with only the CRB too, and if anything the steady drumbeat of new stuff has helped out the low end a lot more than the high end.
I would argue that they would still count considering game is composed of random card drops right, so back when both cards were in rotation, if you were to get both of them to choose from then one of them is just plain useless. Even if both are comparatively useless to everything else. Either way, even if they aren't true example, I think its good way to demonstrate it since as far as I'm aware, power creep isn't about shifting whole metagame by new op options and is more about invalidating old options by making them feel completely pointless in comparison. I'm not sure what is term for the other thing, but its not power creep as far as I'm aware <_< Still, maybe I should brush my memory and check that extra credits video again, I remember it doing pretty good job summing it up but I haven't seen it ages so I could have forgotten most of it by now.
I mean sure, but both of the cards were not in the same packs. TGT cards could exclusively be obtained from TGT packs, so you would never get an Ice Rager and a Magma Rager from the same pack. More importantly, Magma Ragers are basic cards. They can never be found in packs to begin with, because you start the game off with 2 copies of them for free. Magma Rager is a terrible card, but you can never get more copies of the card OR remove it from your collection. Every person who plays Hearthstone owns 2 magma ragers.
Yes, Ice Rager is an improvement off this basic card that you have for free. However, the card is still bad. More importantly, the card is still bad AND it can be disenchanted. Ice Ragers, as a bad card, could be disenchanted into 5 dust and that dust could be collected to turn them into better cards.
Sure, you were never happy to see an Ice Rager show up in a pack but thats because its a BAD CARD. Expansions have a few of those, both to fill out packs and to keep Arena fresh. The card is not an example of Power Creep in the slightest because while it is better than a prior identical option, the end result is still WORSE than all other available options.
Power Creep is only bad when it restricts options, if a developer wants to examine terrible options and replace them with slightly less terrible options then good on them for trying. If they manage to make the option good enough to be playable, then they have done a great job. If they make it too powerful, they'll need to rethink their design choices.
Simple as that.