There seem to be two main problems that people have with the idea of power creep. One is the idea that increasing more powerful options are used to entice people to continue buying more products. As this point is related to designer intention and does not directly impact gameplay, I will not respond to this argument here.
The second and more significant argument is that options in existing supplements are made obsolete by options in newer books. In this view, newer supplements are not so much increasing the number of character options available as replacing existing options entirely. Further, a player can find themself in the position of playing a character in a longstanding game and regretting their character creation decisions due to superior options that became available during the life of the campaign. While 4e is still young, one can definitely come up with examples of systems in which this pattern got entirely out of hand. (Rifts comes to mind.)
But let us consider the challenges that designers must deal with in developing a complex, scalable, highly rule-based system such as dnd4e. Game designers are only human. For such a large and complex system, it is extremely difficult to know from the start exactly how everything is going to balance out. And unlike MMOs, where referencing books and remembering mechanics is not an issue, they cannot freely adjust the relative strength of a swath of different options at the wave of a hand.
Many seem to take the attitude that everything should have been perfectly balanced in playtesting, but I cannot consider this viewpoint to be realistic. A healthy level of playtesting helps, but there is no substitute for the cumulative experience of the entire playing population over periods of months and years. The question is, then, when you are coming out with the core books and you do not have this experience to draw on yet, what do you do?
When PHBI was released, I was stuck by how cautious the system seemed. By sandboxing individual powers and not featuring passive abilities as heavily as was done in 3e, the potential for gross imbalances was significantly reduced. Further, the effects that individual feats had seemed very conservative compared to what we were used to. My overall impression was that the designers wanted to play it careful and see how things played out.
Most people would agree that there have already been some significant design mistakes in 4e. However, considering some of the gems that the 3.0 PHB included, such as grappling, Boots of S & S, Rhino Hide Armor, and the amazing 1-level Ranger class, I would say that they did a pretty good job of starting from a relatively level ground.
After releasing the core books, the designers have the opportunity to gauge reactions to the material and see how most people feel the game plays out over thirty levels. At this point, the designers can release new options to improve core options that fell a bit flat. For example, the new Half-Elf feat that makes the dilettante power more meaningful or correcting the fact that a certain defender build (Chaladins) had little way of discouraging enemies from walking right past them to harass their more vulnerable allies. These options are, by definition, stronger than what existed previously, but improve game balance, not detract from it.
Further, I have no doubt that the designers have a better feel for the 4e system and its balancing now than they did one year ago. A common interpretation of the new Expertise and defense-boosting feats is that they are a hack onto the system to correct imperfect scaling of the mechanics at higher levels. Ignoring for the moment what passed for scaling in 3e, this assessment may be true.
But what of it? Again, this is not an MMO in which the defenses and attack bonuses of monsters can be freely tweaked to make the system flow smoothly. If the designers understand the system better now and can release relatively minor changes that fix scaling problems at relatively little cost, so much for the better.
This improved understanding of the 4e system also makes it safer for the designers to go farther out on a limb and introduce new and interesting mechanics without as much risk of breaking things. Some of these options will be stronger than the designers might have been comfortable with taking a chance on at first, but this is not really a problem as long as it does not kill previously viable alternatives.
To sum up, I propose that modest power creep can be a good thing so long as the following conditions are met:
1. Changes should strengthen options that initially proved to be deficient relative to their alternatives
2. Changes should improve the overall harmony of the game mechanics - that is to say, keep encounters from becoming either too swingy or too slow and predicable
3. No base class is ever made obsolete
4. Almost no paragon paths or epic destinies are ever made obsolete
5. The number of usable feats that are made obsolete is kept to a reasonable level
Reactions?
Quaestor the Wanderer
However, that doesn't mean it is okay. It still sucks, and still shouldn't happen.
On the other hand, some of the newer options can also turn out to be more powerful than intended, causing it to become an obvious choice when appropriate. This then narrows the number of viable options. This only occurs occasionally, but it only takes a half-dozen or so options out of hundreds provided to cause cries of "power creep."
Balancing things is tricky. Providing less powerful options isn't going to change anything since nobody will choose them. Therefore, there is a natural bias towards moderate power creep.
Finally, I'd like to say that I think your list of caveats for beneficial power creep were well-stated.
;)
But let us consider the challenges that designers must deal with in developing a complex, scalable, highly rule-based system such as dnd4e. Game designers are only human. For such a large and complex system, it is extremely difficult to know from the start exactly how everything is going to balance out. And unlike MMOs, where referencing books and remembering mechanics is not an issue, they cannot freely adjust the relative strength of a swath of different options at the wave of a hand.
I'm going to tell you a little secret:
This doesn't justify power creep.
The explanation is equally simple:
If the game doesn't work, it shouldn't cost me, the consumer, money to fix it, but rather the person who sold me the product.
This is the idea behind the warranty; if you sell me a faulty product, it is your responsibility as the manufacturer to fix it for me, not my responsiblity to go "Oh, well, I shouldn't have bought it from you in the first place".
Many seem to take the attitude that everything should have been perfectly balanced in playtesting, but I cannot consider this viewpoint to be realistic. A healthy level of playtesting helps, but there is no substitute for the cumulative experience of the entire playing population over periods of months and years. The question is, then, when you are coming out with the core books and you do not have this experience to draw on yet, what do you do?
The key here is twofold. Yes, playtesting does not find every bug in the system. But there's something else as well.
This is the system you build. You should have a systematic way of determining appropriate power levels for things, via math. You should be able to make a new power, and be able to use this underlying understanding of the system to get it in the right ballpark. Sure, it might deal a little bit too much or too little damage, but it should be close.
A good example of this would be a rule "All feats which add a bonus must be typed feat". If something violates this rule, it needs to be looked at intensively. For instance, power attack breaks this rule, but its okay because the math works out that it isn't overpowered, and indeed is rather bad at epic.
When PHBI was released, I was stuck by how cautious the system seemed. By sandboxing individual powers and not featuring passive abilities as heavily as was done in 3e, the potential for gross imbalances was significantly reduced. Further, the effects that individual feats had seemed very conservative compared to what we were used to. My overall impression was that the designers wanted to play it careful and see how things played out.
Thing is, this is correct game design. What you see later on, in stuff like the AV and MP, is incorrect, bad game design.
Most people would agree that there have already been some significant design mistakes in 4e. However, considering some of the gems that the 3.0 PHB included, such as grappling, Boots of S & S, Rhino Hide Armor, and the amazing 1-level Ranger class, I would say that they did a pretty good job of starting from a relatively level ground.
The job they did on the initial book was not bad. They had some real issues - Seal of Binding, Blade Cascade, Rain of Blows, the Orb of Imposition class feature, Divine Miracle - which were problematic, but overall it wasn't so bad.
After releasing the core books, the designers have the opportunity to gauge reactions to the material and see how most people feel the game plays out over thirty levels. At this point, the designers can release new options to improve core options that fell a bit flat. For example, the new Half-Elf feat that makes the dilettante power more meaningful or correcting the fact that a certain defender build (Chaladins) had little way of discouraging enemies from walking right past them to harass their more vulnerable allies. These options are, by definition, stronger than what existed previously, but improve game balance, not detract from it.
Thing is, it doesn't matter because A) it doesn't obsolete anything and B) it doesn't strengthen something which was strong. Indeed, it is arguable that something which doesn't increase the overall power level isn't actually power creep at all; improving a subpar option, so long as that option does not exceed the best option, and is mutually exclusive with the best option, doesn't actually increase the maximum power level of characters.
The key thing is that power creep is only really power creep if it makes the top end higher. Where the bottom is doesn't really matter that much.
Further, I have no doubt that the designers have a better feel for the 4e system and its balancing now than they did one year ago. A common interpretation of the new Expertise and defense-boosting feats is that they are a hack onto the system to correct imperfect scaling of the mechanics at higher levels. Ignoring for the moment what passed for scaling in 3e, this assessment may be true.
Except the problem is that this is flamingly terrible design.
Expertise does not fix the system. Period. It breaks it.
The problem is, fundamentally, thus: it isn't a feat. It shouldn't be a feat. Its supposed to be a fix to the game's math, and as such, it should be errata.
Thus, in short:
Power creep IS bad. The best you can hope for is options creep, wherein stuff gets slightly better, but at an expontentially decreasing rate - that is to say, the amount better characters get with each book decreases with each book.
But what of it? Again, this is not an MMO in which the defenses and attack bonuses of monsters can be freely tweaked to make the system flow smoothly. If the designers understand the system better now and can release relatively minor changes that fix scaling problems at relatively little cost, so much for the better.
The key is, this is what errata is for. This is a very different thing from power creep.
To sum up, I propose that modest power creep can be a good thing so long as the following conditions are met:
1. Changes should strengthen options that initially proved to be deficient relative to their alternatives
2. Changes should improve the overall harmony of the game mechanics - that is to say, keep encounters from becoming either too swingy or too slow and predicable
3. No base class is ever made obsolete
4. Almost no paragon paths or epic destinies are ever made obsolete
5. The number of usable feats that are made obsolete is kept to a reasonable level
To sum up:
No.
1 isn't power creep.
4 and 5 are both bad.
So no, your list is bad.
Power creep is bad. Ideally, it shouldn't happen.
If the game is messed up on a mathematical level, errata should fix that, if possible. New books should not be necessary for the book I purchased to be functional.
Yes, but there is a difference between "power creep" from level to level, and power creep from book to book. One makes for a good game, the other breaks a good game.
Feel free to make your entire playing group use content solely from PHB1. Same for Titanium_Dragon. You aren't required to buy other books.
I would tend to agree with the OP's sentiment.
Feel free to make your entire playing group use content solely from PHB1. Same for Titanium_Dragon. You aren't required to buy other books.
I would tend to agree with the OP's sentiment.
I am hoping the PHB 2 is equal in power to the PHB 1. In fact, I think it generally speaking will be. If it is not, and its an example of blatant power creep, it will be the last 4e book I buy. If I am right, and with the exception of a few broken powers/feats (just like there were a few broken powers and feats in PHB 1) it is pretty well balanced with the PHB 1, I will keep buying 4e books (like I have to date. In fact, I have bought nearly every single 4e book released to date).
Feel free to make your entire playing group use content solely from PHB1. Same for Titanium_Dragon. You aren't required to buy other books.
I would tend to agree with the OP's sentiment.
Garbage, I'm afraid. I'm not the only person who plays the game, disallowing content from PHB 2 restricts who I can play the game with, and it means that if I play the game with random people, its much more likely to be broken and therefore unfun due to broken stuff therein.
In short, your opinion is wrong. Everything published by WotC affects almost everyone, sooner or later.
Power creep IS bad. The best you can hope for is options creep, wherein stuff gets slightly better, but at an expontentially decreasing rate - that is to say, the amount better characters get with each book decreases with each book.
Aside from when some tweak to overall balancing is desired for some reason, I mostly agree with this description. Again, I only believe that a gradual increase in power is useful if it is done properly.
The key is, this is what errata is for. This is a very different thing from power creep.
[...]
If the game is messed up on a mathematical level, errata should fix that, if possible. New books should not be necessary for the book I purchased to be functional.
Actually, I happen to agree that issuing errata relatively liberally for balance purposes would be an interesting solution. However, aside from the fact that WotC stated somewhere that they would generally issue errata only if something is not working as it was intended and not for balance reasons, I would guess that most players do not want to have to check all of their feats and powers for errata regularly. Until print books are replaced with electronic books as the primary medium for RPG supplements, I don't think that we will see this approach out of any major game company.
One other possible challenge to this approach is that I would think that it would be very labor-intensive. It would require a team of people to continually monitor gameplay and feedback on everything, suggest and implement changes, and playtest and edit those changes. As the number of feats and powers in the game increases, this task would continue to be difficult. This labor would need to be paid for somehow.
Quaestor the Wanderer
Garbage, I'm afraid. I'm not the only person who plays the game, disallowing content from PHB 2 restricts who I can play the game with, and it means that if I play the game with random people, its much more likely to be broken and therefore unfun due to broken stuff therein.
In short, your opinion is wrong. Everything published by WotC affects almost everyone, sooner or later.
Opinions can't be wrong they're subjective, you may not agree with it, but that doesn't make it wrong. Besides, I tend to agree with Propane.
Bel
Opinions can't be wrong they're subjective, you may not agree with it, but that doesn't make it wrong.
QFT. I wish more people understood this these days, especially when online. I can rant and rave all I want about something, but at the end of the day I still know it's only opinion, not fact, and that someone out there is going to disagree with me.
QFT. I wish more people understood this these days, especially when online. I can rant and rave all I want about something, but at the end of the day I still know it's only opinion, not fact, and that someone out there is going to disagree with me.
Actually... most people see their opinion AS fact. Take Titanium_Dragon as an example. He keeps talking as if what he felt was fact, but its opinion. Now, one can make a reasoned argument(which he didn't), but its still opinion. People need to learn though that opinions are not sacrosanct. If your opinions are based on faulty math, or faulty reasoning, and you continue to propound your opinions as fact(just using the pronoun, not accusing you directly), then everyone else has the right to point that out.
Kind of like all the arguments made by devout christians in Florida recently against teaching Evolution. One man came up and said, "Evolution says that this orange can reproduce and become a man. But that is impossible! Evolution is wrong!"
Now, power creep. I think what OP is saying is that the new options are errata effectively, to make the game more fun, without having to have people print off whole reams of new errata. Plus, Wizards needs to make money. So they put the new options in a new book, so it reaches everyone.
The OP expressed himself a certain way, that of this being an opinion, with some facts. People can agree or disagree, but again, that is an opinion.
@Titanium_Dragon: presenting opinion as fact is a very under-handed, deceptive and ineffective argument technique. Its usually only used on Talk Radio, where the casters can make all sorts of claims they want from a false perspective of Authority. No self-respecting debate team, lawyer, or scientist would ever use it.
At least in regard to: feats and powers.
Races and classes (on average) should be as close to equal as possible with the base classes winning in the event of a close tie.
If you can buy PHB2, 3 and 4 and make a broken character through a combination of feats, skills, multi-classing, and powers that's fine. It's alot of work but unavoidable. Unforseen combinations are always the most dangerous examples of power creep.
However, if you can just play class X and be more powerful than that is unacceptable.
If every sorcerer is inherently a better striker than every rogue or ranger then that's an example of bad power creep. If every warden plays superiour to a fighter then that's wrong.
And, sadly, the only way to fix it with WotC's current update set-up is to release a new book and pump-up the broken character with new options...
Actually... most people see their opinion AS fact. Take Titanium_Dragon as an example. He keeps talking as if what he felt was fact, but its opinion. Now, one can make a reasoned argument(which he didn't), but its still opinion.
That's why there's an "ignore" feature in your profile, so you can just remove him from your personal version of the forum.
I did about four months back and can now safely return to the errata forum or any discussion on PC flight.
And, uh... power creep. Bad business that.
...the final version of the wizard is, if anything, possibly on the slightly weak side; the wizard was all alone as the first practitioner of the controller role and we stayed cautious knowing that we could improve the class later if we needed to.
We've since acquired a better understanding of the controller role while working on Player's Handbook 2. So of all the classes, the wizard may be the class that improves the most after getting its full treatment in the book for its power source. It's not necessarily that Arcane Power makes the wizard stronger, but Arcane Power adds options like summoning and familiars that are part of the wizard's inheritance. We always knew that the wizard had "too much stuff" to be handled completely in the first Player's Handbook. With Arcane Power I think long-time wizard players will feel a bit more at-home with the class.
It will be interesting to see to what extent they simply introduce different types of powers for the wizard, and to what extent they introduce new powers that are similar to existing powers but do more damage. That should tell us something of to what extent WotC believes they overcorrected on the Wizard's initial power level.
Quaestor the Wanderer
Well said indeed. "Power Creep" is unavoidable in any kind of continuously expanding set of product(s)
I don't think this is entirely true. I think it is true of most products, but not entirely true of an RPG that was made to be open source, because then it could be edited and re-released when problems arise, and by anyone, at that. But that's just an idea I've had floating in my head so I'll get off it.
To the OP, I'd add the additional caveat that no particular build should be made obsolete (I just mean the basic builds, like "great weapon fighter" or "guardian fighter").
Creating strictly better options is power creep, and requires a darn good reason for doing it.
Creating new avenues and directions (IE. Incarnum, Bo9S) that did not exist before is not power creep, and is debatable on its merits.
For me, the 4ed PHB had a dearth of ways to increase attack rolls. As such, the expertise feat seems way too good. However, if it were packaged alongside Toughness and Weapon Focus in the first PHB, there would be less backlash. Perhaps on the level of "Orbizard" and "Demigod" but not to this level.
However, aside from the fact that WotC stated somewhere that they would generally issue errata only if something is not working as it was intended and not for balance reasons
Thing is, this is a self-contradictory statement. Something which is unbalanced is by its very nature not working as it was intended, and they've already issued numerous bits of errata for this very reason.
Opinions can't be wrong they're subjective, you may not agree with it, but that doesn't make it wrong.
No matter what your school taught you incorrectly, you aren't a special snowflake, and opinions can indeed be wrong.
I'm going to tell you a little secret:
Reality isn't subjective. Its objective.
People may have subjective views on it, but they can be objectively wrong.
Many people have beliefs, which are a sort of opinion, about the way reality works which are objectively wrong. The Earth is not flat, for instance. That is an objective fact. But some people believe it is flat. These people are wrong.
This is just to give a simple example of it.
I'm sorry, but you are objectively wrong. I play D&D with more than two people; I play it with a variety of people. Ergo, I am affected by it. I do not always DM, and even if I did, banning entire books makes it less likely for me to find players.
Opinions are subjective, but that doesn't make them non-falsifiable.
For me, the 4ed PHB had a dearth of ways to increase attack rolls. As such, the expertise feat seems way too good. However, if it were packaged alongside Toughness and Weapon Focus in the first PHB, there would be less backlash. Perhaps on the level of "Orbizard" and "Demigod" but not to this level.
It would have been just as bad. Maybe worse.
Maybe I'm alone in this but i don't get a book in the hope that it will make my character rigged. For instance, I plan to buy PHB2 because Avenger looks awesome not because I can use Oath of Enmity to become a 'Crit-fisherman.'
If you don't like powers that may ruin the game because they're 'broken' play rock, paper, scissors. No broken builds and no chance of a "faulty product" there.
Even on the offhand that a new book releases something thats even more broken than a elven astral weapon/demigod with a vorpal weapon, I'm willing to bet there will be alot of interesting player options as well. And that's the point. People buy new books for new ideas, tactics, scenarios etc.
Maybe I'm alone in this but i don't get a book in the hope that it will make my character rigged. For instance, I plan to buy PHB2 because Avenger looks awesome not because I can use Oath of Enmity to become a 'Crit-fisherman.'
If you don't like powers that may ruin the game because they're 'broken' play rock, paper, scissors. No broken builds and no chance of a "faulty product" there.
You're saying if your computer randomly fails due to faulty hardware, the manufacturer has no responsibility to fix it, and you should just suck it up and take it.
I'm sorry, no one really buys this argument anymore.
If I buy something, I expect it to work properly. If it doesn't, I expect its producer to fix it.
There are orbizards capable of putting any monster to sleep indefinitely and paladins (or characters that MC) that can make a basic melee attack that never misses and does damage until the player gets tired of rolling. I don't understand what your afraid of in future books. Even if more options like this become available it doesn't matter. A person who wants to create a broken character like this already has the means so it doesn't matter if he/she has more than one way to achieve this goal.
Except if there are two broken things, and both are erratad, there are zero broken things.
If there are a hundred broken things, and two are erratad, there are ninety-eight broken things.
Its far easier to fix something with only two problems than a hundred problems.
Your entire line of reasoning is wrong.
If WotC wants me to buy their products they better damn well put a lot of effort into making sure it is balanced, and into fixing imbalances that are found. The moment they stop doing this is the moment I stop purchasing their products.
And I am sure I am not the only one who feels this way.
Nah, you just assume that because something is broken people will use it.
I assume that if something is in the game, that people will use it. That is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make. What else would they use.
That's not a valid assumption. People played full casters in 3.x. People do play broken stuff, and they don't even always do it to be jerks. They do it because it looks fun. Turns out, it is game wrecking. They also oftentimes don't realize that it is game wrecking beforehand, thinking it is "merely powerful", and oftentimes will obstinantely claim their character isn't broken even when it is, because they think that because it is in the rules, it is fair, regardless of whether the encounters are all laughably easy or they can kill monsters in one hit when it takes anyone else four.
This can be a very easy fix such as having two monsters focusing on said player or perhaps the enemy leader tries to debuff him/her more than others. I see the vast majority of players being quite alright with these solutions.
Are things broken in D&D: without a doubt
Do they negatively effect play: IMO minimally
Cyber-Dave: Mistakes are made. They will be made. But when these mistakes are found they should be fixed with errata.
This.
Even if it means a headache for a few number crunchers who want a perfect system
I completely agree that people will take classes because they look like fun to play. And sometimes those turn out to be too strong to the point that this player has become more effective than others in the party. If this is the case the DM should talk to that player about ways to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.
This can be a very easy fix such as having two monsters focusing on said player or perhaps the enemy leader tries to debuff him/her more than others. I see the vast majority of players being quite alright with these solutions.
Are things broken in D&D: without a doubt
Do they negatively effect play: IMO minimally
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. A DM should not have to put more of his focus on any particular player (thus making that player the star of the show), or penalize a player, just because the player chose to play something that the RULES SAID WERE OK.
D&D 4e is not so bad. Its a good sight better then 3e in terms of balance. But when imbalance is found, its not something that is ok. It is something that needs to be fixed by errata ASAP.
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. A DM should not have to put more of his focus on any particular player (thus making that player the star of the show), or penalize a player, just because the player chose to play something that the RULES SAID WERE OK.
Its ridiculous to play by every rule if it sacrifices entertainment
WotC is appealing to the majority of players when they come out with new and exciting material.
New and exciting material does not equate to power creep, or overpowered material. I do not think the majority of players want overpowered material that breaks the game. And, if they do, and that is what WotC produces, fair enough... they can consider my dollar lost.
Here is the thing, while the majority of players want new and exciting material, I don't think the majority want power creep; they just want new and exciting material. And, the amount of players willing to drop the game if it embraces power creep is more than enough to put a very sizable bite out of D&Ds income. I don't know if its the majority, half, or a sizable minority, but its not just "a few number crunchers who want a perfect system."
So what it really breaks down to is this, if the majority just want new and exciting material, and a sizable minority is willing to drop the game due to power creep, and 4e was built (largely) on the premise of class balance, and its major proponents like the system in large part because it is balanced, introducing power creep now is the dumbest move WotC could do. It will drive away more players than they can afford to loose.
Its ridiculous to play by every rule if it sacrifices entertainment
No, what is ridiculous is that anyone would believe that I should waste my money on a system built under the design philosophy that its ok that if I try to play by every rule I will sacrifice my entertainment, and that the onus is on me to figure out which rules break the system and make it not worth playing. When that becomes true of a system, its time to drop the system.
Thankfully, 4e seems to very much be all about balance. And I expect it to continue to be all about balance. The moment I see books that are blatant examples of intentional power creep, power creep which the devs make no attempt to errata, is the moment I stop purchasing the product.
The average D&D player assumes its balanced or accepts it's going to have some problems. And those in the second group probably won't even look for a way to abuse the power group. WotC will continue to market to their largest demographic and that is not the forum goer worried about power creep
If you assume that 90% of the people on the forums oppose power creep in any form that's still no where near as many people that play D&D. Even if it were everyone on the forums it would still be a small minority.
The average D&D player assumes its balanced or accepts it's going to have some problems. And those in the second group probably won't even look for a way to abuse the power group. WotC will continue to market to their largest demographic and that is not the forum goer worried about power creep
And if you assume that those who do not frequent the forum do not dislike power creep in equal proportions, you are wrong. These forums might be a small minority of the entire population that plays, but they are a decent representation of the community as a whole.
If the average group assumes that the game is balanced, then as the game proves to be imbalanced they will become disenfranchised with the game and will stop purchasing future products. As for those that accept that it will have some problems, when the problem becomes so drastic that each future book creeps further and further towards the higher spectrum of power, they too will become disenfranchised and will stop purchasing the books. I know that there will be some problems. Its inevitable. But I expect the company to make every possible effort to avoid those problems, and to fix those problems with errata. The second I feel the company has stopped doing that is the second I stop purchasing the companies product.
Power creep is awful. Its awful for the game as an entity (because it causes the game to break down), and its awful for the company (because it causes players to stop purchasing future products).
I stopped purchasing 3e products because of the problems in balance that game created. If 4e starts swinging that way, I will stop purchasing 4e as well. I know I am not the only player that feels that way, on the boards or off.
If you play D&D at RPGA or something similar I can see where power creep would be a major negative. I hope that nothing in the future produced will make you stop playing what I consider to be a fun game.
Though, right now, I really love 4e. And, I haven't seen anything about the PHB 2 yet which leads me to believe it will be an example of power creep (yet), though I have seen a few elements I consider broken on the level of some of the elements of the 1st PHB. For now, WotC seems to be releasing errata to fix this. So long as they keep doing so, I'll keep buying their products. The second I feel that too much of the game is broken, and errata for these broken elements is not being released quickly enough, I will stop purchasing their products.
If there are enough players out there like me to seriously influence WotC's bottom line (and I believe there are) then that is enough of a reason to avoid power creep. Its bad for business.
This thread has run its course methinks
Here is the thing though, assuming that the 2 book is a little more powerful on average than the 1st book, this will cause me to look very carefully at the 3rd book. If the 3rd book is a little more powerful than the second book, I won't buy it, and I will drop 4e D&D. So, if that is what you meant by "being any more creepish," I do have something to worry about.
Now, if you meant that you don't think any book will deviate further away from the 1st book in power than the 2nd book will, then everything should be fine... that is assuming that I don't look through the 2nd book and have my eyes pop at its average power level.
Like I said, I am waiting to judge the 2nd book until it is released, and I own a copy.
I completely agree that people will take classes because they look like fun to play. And sometimes those turn out to be too strong to the point that this player has become more effective than others in the party. If this is the case the DM should talk to that player about ways to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.
The correct thing to happen is that the class isn't overpowered, so there never is a problem.
Do they negatively effect play: IMO minimally
Your opinion is contradicted by objective reality.
This can be a very easy fix such as having two monsters focusing on said player or perhaps the enemy leader tries to debuff him/her more than others. I see the vast majority of players being quite alright with these solutions.
Not really, no.
Even if it means a headache for a few number crunchers who want a perfect system
Who doesn't?
Answer: Bad people. People who enjoy messing up games. People who suck too much to design a system properly, so claim that no one really wants it anyway. People who like abusing rules systems in order to make other people miserable.e
Everyone else would indeed enjoy a perfect rules system.
I assume that if something is in the game, that people will use it. That is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make. What else would they use.
That's not a valid assumption.
That made me smile
The correct thing to happen is that the class isn't overpowered, so there never is a problem.
Of course, that lofty goal is not realistic for an actual rule system. Total equality of power for all choices won't work in practice (unless it's a trivial game).
Your opinion is contradicted by objective reality.
Objective reality? As a measure of whether a rules negatively affects (enjoyment of) game play?
Of course, that lofty goal is not realistic for an actual rule system. Total equality of power for all choices won't work in practice (unless it's a trivial game).
Many people glitch out and think "balance" means "perfect absolute balance", but that's not really the case.
It is NOT unrealistic for no class to be overpowered or underpowered.
Objective reality? As a measure of whether a rules negatively affects (enjoyment of) game play?
Actually, you can poll gamers and figure out what their preferences are, as well as observe buying behavior, reviews, ect. You can indeed determine whether or not players enjoy something.
I stopped purchasing 3e products because of the problems in balance that game created. If 4e starts swinging that way, I will stop purchasing 4e as well. I know I am not the only player that feels that way, on the boards or off.
Same here. The annual Monster Manuals will be the true test of powercreep, IMO. If characters made with mechanics derived soley from the PH1 have a harder time taking down monsters from the latest MM than they should, I will stop buying.
I don't think that will happen, but...
"O EM GEE! The queen in chess is like, totally overpowered. She can move anywhere, while the king can only move one space. Chess, is like, totally, like, broken!!!!!!"
Repeat after me: "Variation does not imply imbalance."
In Chess, while you do have the quite powerful queen... so does your opponent. In D&D... that opponent in a certain sense, is the DM. But his queen is more powerful. If a player abuses a combo, and its pretty plain its too powerful, its up to the DM what to do. And, you can't win a chess game using only the queen. ;)
And pretty much any abuse will end up on the forums here, for WotC to decide whether to errata it or not. Besides, who wants to play with players that would use Pun-pun in a real game? Or the Twin Pushers of Doom someone developed when Martial Power came out?
Here's what I think when I read people complaining about balance and power creep:
"O EM GEE! The queen in chess is like, totally overpowered. She can move anywhere, while the king can only move one space. Chess, is like, totally, like, broken!!!!!!"
Repeat after me: "Variation does not imply imbalance."
In Chess, while you do have the quite powerful queen... so does your opponent. In D&D... that opponent in a certain sense, is the DM. But his queen is more powerful. If a player abuses a combo, and its pretty plain its too powerful, its up to the DM what to do. And, you can't win a chess game using only the queen. ;)
And pretty much any abuse will end up on the forums here, for WotC to decide whether to errata it or not. Besides, who wants to play with players that would use Pun-pun in a real game? Or the Twin Pushers of Doom someone developed when Martial Power came out?
Yes, but when someone figures out that if he uses the queen in a certain way with another piece he can move the queen an infinite times in a single turn and take every single piece of the board before you can blink, it's not so fun, is it?
To put it back in DnD terms, it is perfectly acceptable that the Warlock is not the Ranger. That the Warlock does its job differently than the Ranger. The problem comes in is the fact that a Warlock has to be meta-gamed and power-gamed to be as useful as a raptor pet/great bow Ranger or the no-brainer Scimitar Stormwarden. Or that it may end up being that the Sorcerer is just plain better.
Even then this is only really a problem if the Warlock is totally invalidated. As long as the class can be used well, it is an acceptable class. I doubt the sorcerer will be able to overshadow it totally. If the overall power level of the game rises to the point that it is impossible or highly impractical to use a Warlock in terms of combat, then we have an issue of power creep.
Until then, I'm relatively cool with everything WotC has done.
Edit: To defend TD, he has a point about objective reality and using it as a basis. Combat is a huge part of DnD, otherwise there would be no point in purchasing rulebooks. It is a battle game at its core. If the combat becomes completely unfun and boring because one character is incapable of breaching the power gap between him and his compatriots or one character is so powerful that there is no reasonable way of making an encounter which challenges a player, then, objectively, a huge part of the game is invalidated and there is no point to playing the system. Plain and simple. You can free-form RP without spending 30 bucks a month on rules for a battle game which doesn't work.
Here's what I think when I read people complaining about balance and power creep:
"O EM GEE! The queen in chess is like, totally overpowered. She can move anywhere, while the king can only move one space. Chess, is like, totally, like, broken!!!!!!"
Repeat after me: "Variation does not imply imbalance."
Um, except, if players were playing only a single chess piece, not a full team of chess pieces, then yes: a queen is hands down a more powerful piece then a king, or a rook, or a pawn, or really any other piece on the board. It can move the way any other piece can move (except for a Knight) and kill the way any other piece can kill (except for a Knight and a pawn). (And, while it can't kill in the exact same manner as the knight or the pawn, it can kill from farther away.)
Variation does not imply imbalance. But it does not imply that something is not imbalanced either. In a game where every person plays only a single chess piece, there is no reason for any player to ever play anything but a queen.
In chess, both players get the same number of pieces. Both players play a balanced team of pieces. Both players have equal opportunities to power. Likewise, in D&D, all players (except the DM) should have an equal opportunity to power. Nobody should be stuck playing a pawn, or even a king, while another player gets to play a queen.
And pretty much any abuse will end up on the forums here, for WotC to decide whether to errata it or not. Besides, who wants to play with players that would use Pun-pun in a real game? Or the Twin Pushers of Doom someone developed when Martial Power came out?
Wrong. Here's why:
1) If you have an inherently bad idea, its very difficult to undo it if you build something around it. Case in point, battlerage vigor. Some would say "Tempest Technique", but dual strike is the problem there. Conversely, Battlerage Vigor is incredibly complicated to fix becasue it is a mechanic designed around broken stuff - temporary hit point stacking and too many temporary hit points.
2) A lot of the bad stuff is abusive in and of itself. It doesn't take anything else to break Bloodclaw Weapons, Reckless Weapons, Divine Miracle, the Orb of Imposition, other static saving throw penalties, dual strike, Storm of Blades, Seal of Binding, ect. They're broken in and of themselves. While somewhat refreshing as a change of pace from 3.x, on the other hand it means that any one of those things breaks a game, so every one of them has to be fixed individually - there's no grand enabler. While a good thing (modular design is easily fixable) it means that fixing problems involves errataing every single problematic thing, which is a lot of work.
3) Pun-pun isn't the problem. The problem is a tempest technique fighter who deals too much damage, a wizard who applies a -10 penalty to saving throws, or an unkillable character.
In Chess, while you do have the quite powerful queen... so does your opponent. In D&D... that opponent in a certain sense, is the DM. But his queen is more powerful. If a player abuses a combo, and its pretty plain its too powerful, its up to the DM what to do. And, you can't win a chess game using only the queen.
No, it isn't. And this is why you fail.
The DM is not responsible for the game being balanced.
The job of balancing the game is not the DM's, but the game designer's. So long as the DM sticks to the rules, he shouldn't have problems. If he does, then the game designer has messed up.
The DM doesn't have a "more powerful" queen. Yes, the DM can rocks fall everyone dies, but that's unfun and stupid. Per the rules of the game, he isn't supposed to do that; that's outside of the bounds of what he's entitled to do, and is a breach of the DM:player contract.
*snip* ... The problem is a tempest technique fighter who deals too much damage...
I have to ask, how is this considered a bad thing?
In of the technique and/or power itself?
Or simply because the Fighter isn't part of the Striker roles and such blasphemy should be errata-ed as soon as one see's It. Kinda like a Holy Crusade type of deal?
Just asking.
When a class comes out that can conceivably do more damage then the Ranger, it's borken. Why people think it's alright for a class to do less damage then the Ranger is strange, but the 'optimizers' and/or 'errata posters' have this idea that nothing should do more damage then the Ranger.
I have to ask, how is this considered a bad thing?
In of the technique and/or power itself?
Or simply because the Fighter isn't part of the Striker roles and such blasphemy should be errata-ed as soon as one see's It. Kinda like a Holy Crusade type of deal?
Just asking.
Tempest Technique is not a problem, in and of itself.
Dual strike IS a problem, in and of itself. It deals far too much damage.
Its not a "crusade". Its broken because the striker role is defined by its ability to deal high single target damage. Something which deals high single target damage, and isn't a striker, is better than a striker who deals the same amount of damage, because that's ALL strikers do. Sure, they have some mobility stuff, but practically every class possesses mobility stuff.
More or less, Dual Strike, two attacks against a single target at-will, is a striker power and can only be a striker power because it deals too much damage.
It also just deals too much damage period.
The problem with power creep, is that people think the phb is the baseline that the whole game is based upon. No where have the Devs ever said that.
Actually, the PHB is indeed the baseline the whole game is based upon. It is required to play the game, and no option presented therein should be bad.
Additionally, the game's math is based around the math presented in the PHB, DMG, and MM. Going massively above those lines causes major game balance issues.
More or less, we've seen at-will DPR inflate by 50%, which takes it outside of the boundaries of the math of the game.
Something which dealt, say, 90 DPR would not have been unreasonable (though the higher you go, the less reasonable it is because you're looking at things which deal so LITTLE damage - wizards, clerics, warlocks, ect. Even rogues don't deal absurd damage). Something which deals 130 DPR every round and goes up from there, however, is quite unreasonable, especially given that, say, a rogue has dailies which deal only a bit over 100 DPR as their top-end DPR dealing powers.
Actually, the PHB is indeed the baseline the whole game is based upon. It is required to play the game, and no option presented therein should be bad.
Additionally, the game's math is based around the math presented in the PHB, DMG, and MM. Going massively above those lines causes major game balance issues.
More or less, we've seen at-will DPR inflate by 50%, which takes it outside of the boundaries of the math of the game.
True the game rules for 4e was presented in the phb and in that instance the game is based upon the phb, but we are not talking about the rules. We are talking about the feats/powers/races/classes that were presented in the phb, that way too many people think is the 'baseline' for the game.
If I remember correctly I think there are some people here with issues about the Barbarian doing too much damage compared to the Ranger, yet isn't the Barbarian also a striker? Who woulda thunk people would be upset that doing too much striker damage is bad, it's fine if the class does more striker damage then the Warlock or Rogue, just not the Ranger. For some reaason the Ranger has to always be Top Dog in damage.
People shouldn't think of D&D as a college but think of it as a university. The University of D&D has:
The College of Acting
The College of Exploring
The College of Instigating
The College of Powergaming
The College of Slaying
The College of Storytelling
The College of Thinking
The College of Watching
The Dev have to develop the game around all of these colleges, will that mean some colleges can poach mechanics from another? Of course. That is why you have a career councilor ready to shape the curriculum to the class. It's even in the career councilors manual, the DMG
True the game rules for 4e was presented in the phb and in that instance the game is based upon the phb, but we are not talking about the rules. We are talking about the feats/powers/races/classes that were presented in the phb, that way too many people think is the 'baseline' for the game.
It is the baseline for the game by its very nature.
Moreover, the math needs to work out for all classes.
If I remember correctly I think there are some people here with issues about the Barbarian doing too much damage compared to the Ranger, yet isn't the Barbarian also a striker? Who woulda thunk people would be upset that doing too much striker damage is bad, it's fine if the class does more striker damage then the Warlock or Rogue, just not the Ranger. For some reaason the Ranger has to always be Top Dog in damage.
This is a lack of comprehension.
The problem is not "The barbarian does too much damage on an ongoing basis", like the ranger does.
The problem is "The barbarian has powers which deal FAR too much damage". There are barbarian powers (Hurricane of Blows, Storm of Blades) which are broken in half because they allow six attacks as a single action, as an encounter power. Even a daily which allows five attacks is borderline broken; an EP which allows six is broken, let alone NINE. These attacks break a different boundary, individual power damage. They deal too much damage for an encounter power, and they deal too much damage for a daily power (and yet they aren't dailies!), AND they deal too much damage for a single action.
Fundamentally, there are things which cause the game to break. Killing monsters with one attack is one of them. Dealing 130 damage per round as your baseline damage is another.