How does Power Creep happen? Often times, it is our fault Power Creep happens. By this, I mean that we tend to buy things we think are cool and useful. However, after each successive publication, it gets harder and harder to keep that "wow, cool!" factor up without also making it just *slightly* more powerful than what came before. Not enough to actually make it obvious, but just barely enough that you notice there's something special about it. And, while this is not in and of itself a bad thing, it often becomes the standard, and people complain about things being "weak" if they don't live up to this new standard. As time goes by, the standard keeps going up and up, until things look balanced by comparison to everything else that's been coming out, but isn't so well balanced with the original material.
A recent example of this that I've seen (and the reason I started this article) was that someone stated, "So what if they get Damage Reduction as a class ability, as long as it isn't like DR 10/- at first level, its fine." Lets go back to the original core rules, the 3.0 PHB. The ONLY class in the game that got DR of any kind was the Barbarian, and that was specifically because they were supposed to be insanely tough, and extremely hard to kill. They were expected to be on the front line, Raging away with their lowered AC, and needed the DR to survive the encounter.
However, recently I have been seeing more and more classes coming out with Damage Reduction that don't have any real rational reason for it to be there. The Favored Soul and the Warlock come to mind. They get Damage Reduction, but why? They're spellcasters, they're not supposed to be up front in the middle of melee combat, so why do they have it? Unfortunately, the attitude of the players these days seems to be migrating towards "As long as it isn't outright broken, its okay". No thought for if it should have been done, why it should be done the way it was, and little to no respect for what has come before. As long as they get their strong new class that's just a hair better than everybody else, they're happy campers.
It's only been four years since the d20 incarnation of D&D started, and already Power Creep is rearing its ugly head. I fear for how things will look by the time 4e comes out. However, I do realize that I am myself being quite hypocritical, as I embraced 3e over 2e, and the power ramp between the two editions can almost be described as extreme. But still, acknowledging that the problem is there is still the first, and best way, to combat it.
The Favored Soul and the Warlock come to mind. They get Damage Reduction, but why?
Cause they're magic.
The only remedy I see is a new edition. Not something like 3.5, which just adjusted some rules, a new tabular rasa, which redesigns all PCs, PrCs and feats and brings them on a level. Then the power creep will start anew.
There is another kind of power creep, however: The Monster creep. New publications do not only make the PCs stronger, they tend to bring new monsters with more and more powerful abilities to the table, too. Take swarms, for example. CRs are less and less accurate for determining if a party will survive an encounter IMO. I am more worried about this creep than the PC power creep. That's because a too powerful PC will soon be discovered, the DM will sit the player down and make an agreement to modify the rules. A too powerful monster, however, will just kill of the whole party, stopping the whole campaign. I've seen it happen.
I don't think we are in the presence of a Power Creep phenomenon. In my opinion, we're simply facing the fact that D&D is receiving the biggest flood of official and unofficial material in his entire history. I embraced 3rd edition over 2nd too, and for a simple reason. 3rd edition gave us the keys of the systems, not just in the form of the OGL format, but also with a game system that is completely mathematic, based almost entirely on d20 rolls, and founded on the rule a bigger number is better. Such system is not only easy to understand, but it's easy to tweak, to alter, to nerf, to expand. It has no vertical limit.
The problem that comes with that is that some things will be better than others, and some will be much better than the others. But on the other hand, having more options is always a boon. I know that every Complete Warrior will have its Dervish, but it's easy to find the unbalancing element or rule, and modify it to my liking. If 2nd edition gave us 100 options, 3rd edition gives us 500. Even if 200 of them are to be thrashed, that's still more useful stuff than before. Which is fine by me.
I'm DMing a game where we have literally dozen of rule variants, tweaking the system to be as gritty and dark as we want it. With 3rd edition, its flexibility and its options we can do this. I never managed to snatch such freedom with previous editions. If the price I have to pay is a broken race or PrC here and there, I'm ready and willing.
Bottom line is: it's true, more and more powerful things are bound to come in the future. It's in the "genetics" of the game system, which tends, to put it radically, to "bigger numbers". But in my humble opinion, it's a small drawback compared to the flexibility this system grants.
Just my two cents.
For example: I wouldn't allow a player to play a character that is a Half-ogre in a campaign that is set in an urban environment. What would a half-ogre be doing hanging around a tavern in a large city? It's highly doubtful that the guards would not of killed him on sight, let alone allowed him to pass through the gates.
Example #2: I wouldn't allow a player to take the two-weapon fighting feat when all they have ever had is one weapon. Where did they learn to fight with two weapons at the same time? Skills like that just don't appear out of nowhere. It takes time to learn how to use two weapons at the same time proficiently.
Ok enough with examples, basically what I am saying is that what Wizard of the Coast is supplying us with isn't stuff we have to allow into every campaign. They are giving us options. They are like "Hey if you would like to allow a half-ogre in your campaign, then here are the stats that we think it would have." Not "Here's the rules... Take it or leave it!" So with that said, the DM has control of the game, not Wizards of the Coast. So anything they publish shouldn't affect what the DM is striving for, unless the DM allows it.
I think the issue with the Favored Soul is that it is a "metamorph" type class. It's end goal is for the charater to become a different creature type (like the Dragon Disciple or the Acolyte of the Skin). I have yet to see the other class, so I will have to reserve judgement.
Yes, the Favored Soul does indeed seem to be some kind of Solar or Celestrial transition class. In fact, if it actually had a capstone ability of actually saying their type changed to outsider and they actually counted as a celestrial, I'd have no problem with it. Having your type change to outsider is a bad thing. No being able to be raised from the dead, a lot of warding and banishment spells to worry about, all that. Thing is though, it doesn't. It gives all the perks, but none of the penalties of a transitive class.
It seems to me that the only way a power creep can happen in a D&D campaign is if a DM allows it to.
I believe that would just be a twist on the Oberroni Fallacy. Oberoni Fallacy says that "Just because the DM can fix it does not mean it wasn't broken in the first place."
Same thing here. Just because the DM can allow or not allow power creep into his game does not mean it is not happening. And the worst part is, even if you keep it out of your game, the creep just keeps on happening, and it gets worse and worse, until you won't want to use ANY new material in your game.
I think the more pressing question here is "What do you mean by "power" when you mean "power creep"? While it is theoretically difficult to argue against 3e Fighters being less powerful than Skills and Powers Fighters, 3e Fighters having more bonuses right from the bat, in practical terms, Skills and Powers Fighters, and even 2e Fighters were really more influential on the battlefield. The difference exists because characters do not exist in a vacuum. They have to go for or against NPC characters and therein lies the difference between inflation and "power creep."
While it is superficially true that everyone is subconsciously "wowed" by more and more "power", since the effect is eventually seen on both sides of the screen, the end effect is really only more and more complexity and ultimately, there is only so much complexity gamers will tolerate in a game before bowing out and choosing a saner version.
In 3e, the Barbarian did not gain Damage Reduction quite as soon as he does in 3.5e but this change occurs in conjunction with a general toning back of spell effects via DC control and effect control. Overall, therefore, there is a net power shift, but no "power creep", yet, as I see it. 3e's underestimation of spells and effects in itself is reactionary to the drastic reduction of effect spells had in 2e when they were burdened with a save-or-nothing clause. Most experienced gamers knew enough to keep those effects at the far end of a ten foot pole.
I still do not think that spell effects have been scaled back to the level at which nonspellcasters can compete with nonspell effects such as those granted by their respective class features and feats, but the current scaling back of Haste and Spell Focus feats is heartening.
DR on the Warlock, however, is not "power creep" as much as it is "playing it safe". As abilities go, you see, DR isn't really very powerful in the way that Gate is powerful. It helps you survive, but it doesn't really help you to win other than it extends your lifespan. It's not particularly exciting to use, either, since you... ...um... ...well, you don't really use it in any proactive manner I can see. The Warlock is a highly experimental class. While it is, in a sense, derivative from PrCs such as the Pyrokineticist and that Sacred Flame PrC, ultimately, basing an entire PC class's viability on at-will spell effects is basically unheard of in D&D. Rather than go off the deep end with an orgy of powerful spell-like effects, I rather appreciate the designers' decision to go with the relatively more controllable DR ability instead to round out the class's power edges, even if it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Lets go back to the original core rules, the 3.0 PHB. The ONLY class in the game that got DR of any kind was the Barbarian, and that was specifically because they were supposed to be insanely tough, and extremely hard to kill. They were expected to be on the front line, Raging away with their lowered AC, and needed the DR to survive the encounter.
However, recently I have been seeing more and more classes coming out with Damage Reduction that don't have any real rational reason for it to be there. The Favored Soul and the Warlock come to mind. They get Damage Reduction, but why?
The barbarian was not the only 3.0 class to get DR, the monk got it as well.
Also the warlock is imbued with fiendish/fey power, and the DR is a way of showing how some of their benefactor's resilience was transferred to them along with their power.
Warlock: Magical barrier that negates force coming through. This can be represented as AC or DR. It's a game mechanic used to represent power. I haven't actually seen the Warlock yet, so I might be off on a few parts. But I have no trouble seeing the logic there.
Favored Soul: Divine gift combined with an innate understanding and ability to channel divine energy. Same reason they get wings and Weapon Focus/Spec and the Energy Resistances. Sides, if you honestly don't see why they get DR. How do you justify things like the Celestial Mystic or Troubadour of the Stars getting DR?
I don't think we are in the presence of a Power Creep phenomenon. In my opinion, we're simply facing the fact that D&D is receiving the biggest flood of official and unofficial material in his entire history.
(snip)
The problem that comes with that is that some things will be better than others, and some will be much better than the others. But on the other hand, having more options is always a boon.
I don't think there is a power creep at all (note, I haven't read Eberron nor do I play it. It might well be a slightly more powerful campaign than Greyhawk or the Realms). Yes, some new classes, or feats or spells are more powerful than some others. They HAVE TO BE. It is simply beyond the bounds of human skills to expect each writer to make each new thing EXACTLY
as powerful as all that have come before. Especially when all "all that have come before" span such a large gap.
I mean- look at the gap between Wizard and Bard. Are all the new classes more powerful than Wizard? AFAIK, none are. In fact, one new class "Healer" can now proudly take it's place well below the much put-upon bard. Well, then, are most of the new classes above average? Hmm, let's see. We have (not counting Complete Arcane since no one here has played it enough) Warmage 8, Healer 0, Favoured Soul 9, then Samurai 2, Hexblade 3, Swashbuckler 6, then Spirit Shaman 6 or 7 & Shugenda? I went ahead and ranked them (let's not get in a debate about those numbers, OK?) from 1-10, with Bard being 1, and Wizard being a 10 (and sharing that spot with Cleric and Druid, although if you claim that Cleric is a 9, that's fine). As we can see- the Healer has to be rated a number off the scale, while only the FS gets close to the top. The rest comes in as would be expected, with a normal range. If there was a "power creep" you'd see an average higher than 6 (5.5 being dead average) but I figured it as a bit less than 5. Thus, no "power creep."
Now, true Visanideth (great name btw) makes a point about there being so much more material out there. That- all by itself does make a "power creep" of sorts. More choices of spells makes spellcasters more powerful, more weapons improves fighters, more feats help everyone. But on the average, the stuff isn't getting more powerful, you just gain 'the power" of more choices.
I do have to admit- sometimes the game designers did not figure that some munchkins would make certain combos. A good example being a monk-kensai with a VoP. Whether or not the VoP would preclude the Monk from using his new very valuable hands is an interesting and highly debated point. The game designer (for BoED) had to come here and say "NO!!!" to that combo. But there is no way of stopping those kinds of munchkins anyway.
Thus, I submit- there is no real "power creep". The new stuff is--on average--about the same power level as the older stuff.
ONLY class in the game that got DR of any kind was the Barbarian, and that was specifically because they were supposed to be insanely tough, and extremely hard to kill.
Monks got DR at level 20 and a few classes could cast Stoneskin, which also gave DR.
The Favored Soul and the Warlock come to mind. They get Damage Reduction, but why? They're spellcasters, they're not supposed to be up front in the middle of melee combat, so why do they have it?
Because it reflects upon their supernatural backgrounds. The Favored Soul gains quite a few abilities that nudge them towards basically being a celestial and a bit more melee-oriented than your average Cleric. Since the Favored Soul gets DR in a manner extremely similar to Monks, I wouldn't consider that power creep, although I do consider the class to be a good example of power creep as a whole.
The Warlock's DR being power creep seems a bit dubious to me. The flavor reason for it being there seems pretty obvious. Also, they have a somewhat viable reason for having it looking purely at the mechanics. Their only real offensive ability(Eldritch Blast) has a range of 60 feet. They are forced to be closer to combat than other spellcasters. They are expected to be closer to the enemy than most other spellcasters, just like the Barbarian being expected to Rage and not wear Heavy armor. They both take a penalty to their defensive capabilities, but are given DR as a way to mitigate it to a degree.
That is all that it means, that things are considered balanced and acceptable that would not have been seen that way when the game was first created.
This definition begs a few questions.
1. What if things are reclassified as "balanced and acceptable" through further playtesting actually ARE "balanced and acceptable"? Are those things still power creep?
2. You make the assumption that the 3.0 PHB encompasses every possible subject or idea that was "considered balanced and acceptable" at that point in time. This seems like a rather broad claim to make without supporting it. On what basis do you make this claim?
A lot of people think say that warlock is a weak class, and trying to build one I can definitely see the difficulties with getting one new spell-like ability every couple levels. I suppose people will know more when they've had more experience playing them. Maybe it'll turn out they are deemed weak and you can rest easily.
They get Damage Reduction, but why? They're spellcasters, they're not supposed to be up front in the middle of melee combat, so why do they have it?
Damage Reduction for spellcasters is not power creep. It has nothing to do with it. Ooh - look - stoneskin! shapechange!
Favoured Soul is a class that gradually becomes more angelic thus gaining the celestial DR. (Or, alternatively, fiendish).
Warlock just becomes more fiendish.
The ONLY class in the game that got DR of any kind was the Barbarian, [...]
Good article, Edy. Small observation, though, in defence of favoured soul (and maybe warlock, which I have yet to witness): Another class that gets DR in the core rules would be the monk. He, not unlike the favoured soul, transcended into a higher form; so the DR isn't totally out of the blue.
Concerning the closing, comparing the power levels of 2nd and 3rd edition hardly makes any sense, seeing as they're wholly different systems ("Orcs in Warcraft 3 are so much stronger than the ones in Warcraft 2!"). What I mean to say by this is that embracing 3rd ed doesn't make you a hypocrite.
But still, acknowledging that the problem is there is still the first, and best way, to combat it.
Very true. If anyone fails to acknowledge this "evolution" I'll have to personally Nymph Kiss 'em :P
Even if every additional supplement or option or what have you was absolutely balanced with (for instance) the PHB and none of them exceeded it for power, "power creep" would still be a reality. The reason for this is that each additional supplement allows additional options. Some of these options, inevitably, are going to be better than others. So let's say there're 20 different options in this "core PHB" and a character can only pick five of them. Most characters will pick the majority from the top ten, and probably from the top five, of the list. Now "Supplement Material 1" comes out and characters now have 30 different options, however they still only pick the best five from that new list. Then we add in "Supplement Materials 2-10" and we get 120 options, pick five.
Of course, there are further restrictions in classes and so forth and this isn't an entirely accurate representation of the system's problem (though it is useful), but without some sort of hard cap on "how much material comes into the option pool" the power will inevitably slowly creep on up.
My approach to this is to say that players can pick from the core materials (basically, material contained in the three core handbooks plus whatever i'm injecting into the game myself) and one or two additional sources.
Consider, for instance, the various min-maxing approaches. I was just recently pleased by the Planar Handbook's inclusion of some Shadow-planar character options and decided to revive an old character of mine. This character was an Epic (from ELH) Shade (Races of Faerun?) Elf Rogue (PHB) Shadowdancer (DMG) Telflemmar Shadowlord (Unapproachable East) with a couple Bladesinger (Tome and Blood) levels thrown in for good measure. The character took feats from all over the place, including Song and Silence, Planar Handbook (those Planar Heritage feats), Savage Species, Magic of Faerun, and a couple other supplements i can't remember right off the top of my head.
Now, this campaign itself was a fairly powered-up campaign (the DM, foolishly, was worried this unholy amalgamation of supplements would be underpowered compared to the rest of the PCs...) but the point stands: I'm drawing material from at least ten different books, including the two core ones, in order to manufacture this monstrosity. If i were restricted to two supplements plus the core ones i would still be able to more-or-less create the character, but at the same time there would be some natural limit to how much i could include.
For another example of this same thing, take a look at how Magic the Gathering deals with "power creep". Although some expansions (or "supplements") are more or less powerful (and some "formats", or "sets of acceptable supplements" are also more or less powerful--with Vintage, that allows practically every card printed, at the top and with Block, which only allows cards from the most recent one to three sets, at the bottom) the various formats are not necessarily going to increase in power forever. Sure, Standard and Block vary in power from season to season. Overall, however, the "power creep" in those formats can be more or less contained.
Damage Reduction for spellcasters is not power creep. It has nothing to do with it. Ooh - look - stoneskin! shapechange!
Yes, but they have to cast a spell to get it. FS gets it for free. There is a BIG difference between casting a spell (which you can only do a limited number of times), and having an always on ability that nothing can dispel. After all, every Stoneskin a wizard casts is an attack spell that they can't cast for that battle. But really, that's like saying that wizards can cast buff spells, therefore its okay to have a full caster class that gets +4 to all of his stats. After all, the wizard could just cast those buff spells or make a magic item to do the same, so that must be balanced, right? Right....
Favoured Soul is a class that gradually becomes more angelic thus gaining the celestial DR. (Or, alternatively, fiendish).
I could have bought that if they had made it a transitory class. Have it actually become a native outsider at some point. As is, it just gets all the up sides and none of the down sides.
I still say that if the downsides of the FS are so all fired terrible (the split casting stat springs to mind as being the one most people say), then it should be perfectly balanced to split up the Sorcerer's prime casting stat, and then give him a lot of DR, energy resistances, and weapon feats, while not hindering his spellcasting in any way. Right? Right...
After all, every Stoneskin a wizard casts is an attack spell that they can't cast for that battle.
Oh dear. A 20th level Wizard casting Stoneskin is down a fourth level spell. Boo hoo.
Very true. If anyone fails to acknowledge this "evolution" I'll have to personally Nymph Kiss 'em :P
Well, I fail to agree that thereis power creep. Well, except as more options itself makes power creep. Nor has there been any good evidence there is power creep.
Edy's only argument is that two new classes get DR, thus there is power creep. By the time the FS gets his, it is nigh worthless. It is really there for roleplaying flavour- along with the wings. But a class predicated on getting DR wouldn't even mean there is power creep. If there was power creep, you'd have to show me that a substantial number of new classes are more powerful than the PHB classes. But still- the Wizard/Cleric & Druid reign as the "big three". And, what's worse- one new class (the healer) is below the power level even of the poor bard.
It is humanly impossible to make sure that every new class is exactly as powerful as the Median class in the PHB. Some will rise towards the "big 3" some will fall down towards the bottom. But ON THE AVERAGE the new classes are not more powerful than the old. There is no "power creep."
Kiss away, friend.
Lets clearly define what "Power Creep" is. Power Creep refers to when the power level of ANY game begins to slowly rise over time. That is all that it means, that things are considered balanced and acceptable that would not have been seen that way when the game was first created.
I would distinguish between inflation and balance. As time goes on the numbers used for things go up. The oldest red dragon in my 1st edition monster manual has 88hp, the 3.0 edition equivalent has 660hp. Lolth in 1st edition had 66hp, in my 3.0 D&DG she has 820. That’s inflation, it’s also not a problem when it happens across editions. 1st edition PC’s weren’t weaker than their 3rd edition counterparts, they just had lower numbers.
Imagine if a DM instituted a house rule that everything did twice as much damage and everyone had twice as many HP. The numbers on the character sheets would shoot up, but nothing would change balance wise. Fighters could still take the same number of hits they could before. Over time this kind of power creep, what I’m calling ‘inflation’, has definitely happened, but that’s just fine. 3rd edition characters have higher numbers associated with them than 2nd edition characters, that doesn’t imply one is more powerful than the other since their opposition has scaled proportionately.
This only becomes a problem if it happens noticeably inside an edition, which is why your comparison of a 3.5 Warlock to the 3.0 PHB isn’t appropriate. A character built using 3.5 shouldn’t be in the same game as a character built with 3.0 any more than I should set a 66hp Lolth up against my 3.0 high level PC’s. An example I would worry about would be ‘early’ 3.0 material not being competitive against ‘late’ 3.0 material. Such examples are impossible to produce for 3.5 yet since it hasn’t been out long enough to have ‘late’ material.
The “power ramp” between 1st and 2nd, between 2nd and 3rd or 3rd and 3.5 doesn’t matter so long as you just use one set of rules. If you make a switch in a campaign you’ll have to remake and convert characters. People realize this immediately with 2nd to 3rd but it also needs to be done with 3rd to 3.5.
In your definition of power creep you mention a rising power level and changing ideas about balance, but those are two very different phenomena. Power levels can rise without affecting balance if everything rises together. The main concern of balance is that every party member is about as able to contribute to the success of the party’s goals as any other. If the party Cleric is fighting better than the Fighter, and solving lots of problems outside combat with spells, that’s a balance problem. If each of them are dealing attacks with quadruple digit damage that’s a inflation issue, not a balance problem at all. I haven’t actually had a Warlock in a group yet so who knows if they’re balanced, from my rough glance at them I’m not too worried about them stealing the show.
…each additional supplement allows additional options. Some of these options, inevitably, are going to be better than others. So let's say there're 20 different options in this "core PHB" and a character can only pick five of them. Most characters will pick the majority from the top ten, and probably from the top five, of the list. Now "Supplement Material 1" comes out and characters now have 30 different options, however they still only pick the best five from that new list. Then we add in "Supplement Materials 2-10" and we get 120 options, pick five.
Exactly. Flexibility is good. More options means more flexibility. Hence having more options is good. Unfortunately more options also means play testing gets harder and more things like Hulking Hurler get through. This is even worse than the arithmetic you suggest. If I have 5 choices and 20 options to pick from there are 1.8 million possible combinations. If I have 5 choices and 40 options to pick from there are about 79 million possible combinations. Doubling the number of options hasn’t (in this case) doubled the number of combo’s to be checked, it has multiplied it by 42.
Every time you add an ability you have to check it against every other ability in the game for potentially broken combos. As the list of abilities gets longer it takes more and more time to properly check. The exponential expansion of the difficulty of play testing catches up with the publisher eventually and the system starts breaking down. This is why DM approval is built so brazenly into the system, rule 0 and “everything other than Core is optional” are the natural response to the difficulties of play testing everything. Instead of sifting through the millions of possible combinations, a DM only has to evaluate the 4 or 5 his players are actually proposing to play. The surest defense against power creep or balance problems is the one that is already widespread. Cranky, irascible DM’s who scrutinize each build in context and turn down the shifty ones.
-Stephen
Having your type change to outsider is a bad thing. No being able to be raised from the dead, a lot of warding and banishment spells to worry about, all that.
A minor point, but this is only partially correct. Creatures that start off as non-outsiders and have their type changed by a class to outsider can be raised as normal. This made it into the FAQ a while back in reference to monks, though I'm way too lazy to search the current incarnation for a quote. The rest of those pesky problems are spot on, though.
That aside, I try to think more of the idea of power creep as a general factor in any game line rather than fixate too much on any particular class. I think that some level of power creep is bound to happen. When the core books are released, there's only so much room, and there needs to be (for a variety of reasons beyond the space constraints) a good focus on the core mechanics and classes that represent the basic archetypes that are used in the game. There is some room for feats and spells and other modular powers and prestige classes that allow for common areas of focus, but again, by its nature, the core rulebooks will be limited.
Almost inevitably, supplemental materials will follow with additional content. Some of this will be to cover more in depth various specialties that characters might want to focus on, ranging for near-core abilities to very narrow specialization. Others will introduce new and sometimes unusual concepts and character types, particularly those that have a measure of popularity or help to fill out certain games or settings.
This will lead to more powerful characters. More options, particularly those which allow for new measures of specialization will increase the power of certain characters and begin to show some disparity between different mechanic combinations, as this is where optimization really starts to take a hold and make a difference.
Oftentimes you'll also see some after-the-fact balancing. Particularly, if there's a large contingent of people with play experiences that paint a particular game element as underwhelming, more options or simply more powerful more material often appears. It works a certain amount in the other direction, but it encounters what's probably the single biggest factor in power creep: it is easier to add power than it is to take it away.
There are a number of reasons for that. If you put out particular abilities that are less powerful (and possibly more balanced) after a series of overpowered abilities, people will pass it by. However, if you put out particular abilities that are more powerful (and possibly more balanced) after a series of underpowered abilities, people will focus on them very readily. Beyond that, people can get upset over 'nerfs', even tactical and well-honed rebalancing, feeling them to be an attack. A lot of times, just raising the power of everything else in the game is better received than reducing one problematic element, and that does put a bit of pressure on the direction of materials.
And there's the issue of needing to reprint something to reduce it. I'm trying to keep this very general, but consider as an example the changes to Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus to +1 instead of +2 each. One developer said that the specialization being able to push saves by +4 was the real problem - if you only used Spell Focus it would more than likely be fine to keep the bonus as +2. However, there's no ready mechanism currently used to delete a feat - reprinting both feats was the way to be sure. Reprinting being as imperfect as it is, and particularly problematic in dealing with powers in core books, this means that most times large scale efforts in trying to reduce power creep generally only occur in version changes. Which can be problematic, as the now-or-never opportunity leads to a larger numbers of 'nerfs', and implementing such all at once is bound to be a little messy. (Really, this isn't always problem as version changes can be such fundamental redesigns so as to provide something of a clean slate.)
Beyond all that, there's another definite factor in power creep that's been mentioned. And that's the "wow" factor. When people write material, they don't just want to see it as viable, they want to see it as attractive, they want to see it used. There's a definite pressure to push the envelope, to ensure that a particular feat or PrC or class will be seen as attractive and well received.
I still say that if the downsides of the FS are so all fired terrible (the split casting stat springs to mind as being the one most people say), then it should be perfectly balanced to split up the Sorcerer's prime casting stat, and then give him a lot of DR, energy resistances, and weapon feats, while not hindering his spellcasting in any way. Right?
Well, that's not an entirely accurate comparison. The Divine Soul's closest analog is not the sorcerer, though spellcasters they both may be. The Divine Soul is designed to be a variant divine caster, and divine casters receive higher base statistics, more combat capability, and supernatural perks as compared to arcane casters. Irrespective of the opinion you or I may have of this difference between those two types of casters, it certainly isn't power creep to maintain this difference.
On the other hand, always having the resistance helps a ton, since it is always active, takes no resources (spells or material), and most importantly, it does not take a round to cast. To a high level spellcaster, spells per day is far far less important then spells per round. In any high level encounter, a spellcaster is going to get off 2-5 spells before combat ends one way or the other. Not having to spend a round casting a defensive spell to protect against a foe is one more round of casting good ole butt-whopping spells.
I compare the Dwarven Defender to the Hammer of Moradin from Player's Guide to Faerun - no comparison at all, the HoM is WAAAAY tougher. In fact, the Dwarven Defender is a pipsqueak by comparison. I compare the weapons in Races of Stone to those in the PHB. The Races of Stone weapons are SICKENLY overpowered compared to the ones in the PHB. There's guys at www.3rdedition.org who have proven this mathematically.
I could go on for HOURS typing examples of how the recent supplements contain spells, weapons, classes and feats that are overpowering compared to the core rulebooks. So, I won't bother. Crack the books and look for yourselves. The reason is that WotC wants to sell more books. For that, they can appeal to the fluff - appreciating crowd, and to the powergaming crowd, two groups who are characteristically more inclined to part with their money for more books. For the powergaming crowd, if there isn't power increase in a published book, they would be less likely to buy it.
Anyways, my $0.02.
L8er
evilgenius
What it boils down to is that if everything newer is more powerful [relative to older stuff], then if you don't adopt ALL of the newer stuff then you find it hard pressed to accept ANY of the newer stuff; at least not as-is. If you accept the inflation (adopt it all), then everything old slowly gets phased out as it becomes more and more worthless; if you don't, you have to adjust everything new that comes out, and that's potentially an awful lot of adjusting, just to use the new materials. Eventually it may get to the point where a DM (who uses "old-school" stuff like... I don't know, something like the core PHB) might as well just ignore all the new stuff and make everything up himself .. or, perhaps, browse the new books in the store to get ideas, then leave them on the shelf to go home and work out his own crunchies.
In my opinion, we're simply facing the fact that D&D is receiving the biggest flood of official and unofficial material in his entire history. I embraced 3rd edition over 2nd too, and for a simple reason. 3rd edition gave us the keys of the systems, not just in the form of the OGL format...
Opening up third party stuff, among other things, contributed greatly to the creep, IMO. WotC's releases, to my eye, were more balanced against the core rules, and I trusted them; basically I'd allow any of it with only a cursory glance. But since "more powerful" is generally more attractive, it became hard to compete with third-party materials, and WotC simply followed market pressure and started following suit. I might be a "stingy" DM, but I've rejected more and more new material lately.
If there is a 3rd level spell that deals 5d6 damage to all opponents within 20', and there is a 4th level spell that deals 5d6 damage to all opponents within 10', and then a new 4th level spell is created that deals 5d6 damage to all opponents within 40', there are people who will go "that's power creep."
No, it isn't, because no-one would ever have chosen that 4th level spell. It was so underpowered that it wasn't worth choosing. The new spell is the proper power level.
That's a big problem with the power creep camp - they often accuse things of being power creep when in fact the previous options were so underpowered that no-one played them.
This is not to say that there aren't legitimate examples of power creep, but I don't think they're as widespread as is made out.
The Favoured Soul Damage Reduction is a case in point. This is a 20th level ability, and, as such, irrelevant to most campaigns. Even in those campaigns when it is relevant, it is not helping against "save or die" spells or a host of other things that can kill the character - which are actually more common at those levels.
This is not to mention that DR 10 is rather insignificant against a Pit Fiend which is happily dealing 2d8+13 damage with attacks (and has DR 15/good and silver!)
Cheers!
Power creep, in a system with an increasing number of options, designed by people with a less-than-perfect understanding of game balance, is inevitable.
You can't stop winter. You can't stop old age. You can't stop power creep.
Favored souls compared to a cleric: Favored souls lose their turn/rebuke, suffer from multiple attribute distribution (solved by making wisdom a flat 10 and reducing the role to support), & lose some versatility. Favored souls gain perfect saves, more spells per day, and some minor adds to improve their combat.
As for Warlocks: The warlock lacks versatility aside from the imbue item. Although a warlock can heal himself and reduce some small damage the warlock himself doesn't get to do the kind of damage that a wizard or sorcerer gets to do in a round. But the warlock is always at full supply of arsenal, which is the trade off.
A frenzy berserker (a very fun class to play) has a huge tradeoff to do a lot of damage. Sure I can get my damage somewhere in the 100 - 400 range depending on what I am fighting and how much I power attack for in my leaping charge. But when I do this some amazing things happen: my ac will be low, my hp will be high but only for a short while, or I could fail my will save and remain in my frenzy to kill my allies. What this means is that most likely I will be fighting somewhere in the battlefield alone to take all the hits. Also I can't always control when I frenzy, because whenever I take damage I might frenzy. This makes me a huge threat to my allies and I might not even have my frenzy for the boss fight.
So to conclude: There's always going to be trade offs and people will tend to like certain trade offs better then other trade off.
I like the favored soul / stormlord build. I get a formidable melee combatant and a healer for the party. Without the party I'd be very much screwed; just like a bard.
It seems to me that the power creep is so visible because Wizards has such a tremendous output. Indeed, they're publishing at such a breakneck pace that, to look at the books, one might not think they have any proofreaders (but that's a subject for a different rant, to be found on page XX). The faster we get new material, the faster the game's natural power creep progresses.
And common sense is the only answer.
No, you can't be a Half-Dragon Changeling Warshaper Frenzied Berserker with a Huge vorpal spiked chain. Basically, they'll keep on as they have, and we keep on as we have. Maybe someday the newest splatbooks will be full of Warshapers and Frenzied Berserkers, and then we'll have the option of A) not buying them and having fun with the four dozen books we already have, B) buying them and houseruling them down to a level we're comfortable at, or C) buying them, biting the bullet, and letting the power creep blow our game into Superland. None really sounds too bad. The distant prospect of being left behind by Wizards is rather saddening, but it's one I've had to acquaint myself with since talk of 4th Edition started.
So I guess my response to power creep is... bring it on. DMs (and responsible players) have been dealing with it and its ilk since the good/neutral/evil old days, and we'll handle it just the same.
Some of power creep comes from the fact that the wide variety of feats allows them to be picked in such a manner that they have a synergistic effect. One individual book might offer 2 feats that improve someone's ability to grapple, and taken together they are not overwhelming. However, if 2 other books also offer 2 additional feats, then suddenly you have a character that have devoted 6 feats to being a better grappler... they are an overwhelming force when it comes to grappling. They might not stand a chance against an insubstantial spectre, but anything else is going to suffer. What happens is that many encounters become very easy when you have one-trick characters. A DM can micromanage encounters and tailor them specifically against the PCs, but this might interfere with the player's suspension of disbelief and it certainly interferes with a DM who strives to create encounters that will work for any party makeup.
My temporary (and not refined) solution is to offer the following:
Use the PHB and MM = then you get a 32 point buy.
Use a LA +0 race from MM = 30 point buy.
Use any one splatbook or Savage Species or LA+0 race from MM= 28 point buy
Use two or more splatbooks or develop a custom ability based on some other worldbook or 3rd party publication (with DM approval)= 25 point buy
Having said that, there are definitely some SERIOUSLY unbalanced books. Two books are Book of Exalted Deeds, Complete Divine and Libris Mortis.
Book of Exalted Deeds: Had quite a few PrCs that were over the board power. VOP unbalanced vs monk or arcane casters. Some spells were OUT there. Like Celestial Brilliance which can last days. My opinion is that this book what hardly tested and now I am very wary of the editor and writer and any of their future work. There is no power creep from this book, it's just badly made in terms of balance.
Complete Divine: First this book came with multiple errors. This book also came with copied errors, this book also came with feats like Divine Metamagic which can result in serious broken combos. So obviously this book can have terrible core classes like the Favored Soul. Hence it's not a power creep, it's a badly made book and you shouldn't use it..
Libris Mortis: Check out the templates, all have weak + LA. Things like Evolved Undead and Half Vampire. On top of that you have several spells that are messed up and despite being errated previously, was copied without the correction on the book. I speak of the infamous Summon Undead series of spells. There are also several feats which you can consider broken. The book is nice but really needed work on balancing it. It's not a power creep to use it, you just should avoid it cause it is not well edited and tested.
So in conclusion, either the options are overwhelming you cause you are HUMAN and do forget things and the players only have to think of their character or the book is badly made and badly balanced.
The reason is that WotC wants to sell more books. For that, they can appeal to the fluff - appreciating crowd, and to the powergaming crowd, two groups who are characteristically more inclined to part with their money for more books.
This is the real reason. It's the same reason that more splat books are produced than DMG IIs. There is one DM in a group, but there are (typically) 3-8 players. It is more cost-effective for WotC to produce a book that 8 people will buy than one that a single person will buy.
Powergamers are the ones looking for the latest & greatest tweak, so they will buy a new book if it has something in it to exploit, whether a straight-forward item, feat, or ability that is more powerful, or something that opens a new loophole.
The problem is usually two-fold.
1) It isn't to say that WotC is deliberately trying to ramp up the power in later products, but is probably responding more directly to market feedback. It's not "let's ramp up the power" so much as "let's give the customer what he or she wants." The people who buy the books make the rules (...more powerful, he he).
2) Issues that might cause some to see power creep, are the lack of real-world playtesting and inconsistent use of language. The warlock is the prime example. There were so many vague ("innate" anyone?) or improperly defined (spell level of Eldritch blast, "new invocation", etc.) rules written into this class, that powergamers had a free-for-all, while more reserved players were struggling to show that the class was front-loaded but slightly weak.
Some real-world playtesting by people who try to maximize numerics would have shown that there were problems. WotC should have a searchable rules database their developers can use to find all instances of "spell-like ability", for example. They need to get items to market so quickly to keep up with (perceived?) demand for new material that they release beta material and fix it with errata (sometimes).
3.0 PrCs were generally quite a bit stronger than their 3.5 equivalents.
Most of the major "power creep" has gone into improving the weaker character types - better weapons and feats for fighters, multiclassing for monks, better feats for paladins, and better multiclassing for spellcasters.
The individual options generally aren't more powerful. Having more of them allows a creative character optimizer to put together a stronger combination, but even so, how many of those combinations actually match a core druid for power and versatility?
It can be done (the Character Optimization board includes a "Triple Threat" divine/arcane/expert build, but even that employs a 3.0 class and lacks the martial punch of a pure druid), but it's very, very difficult, requires a lot of time and cash, and falls clearly under the header of "things a GM will ban if he's interested in keeping a lower power level."
I don't think there is a power creep at all (note, I haven't read Eberron nor do I play it. It might well be a slightly more powerful campaign than Greyhawk or the Realms).
Actually, Eberron has a lower power level than every other published campaign I've ever seen; Clerics are uber-mega-rare, and most "Priests" actually have expert levels (just an example).
All other points, danielinthewolvesden, I agree with you on.
For the most part, players push the power creep, and players also halt the power creep. Everyone wants a powerful character, but everyone hates being overshadowed. Look at the various overpowered cleric and druid threads. Look at the "fix the fighter" threads. The community, as a whole, wants parity within the classes.
In my mind, power creep comes from unintended interaction. You can't know how every PrC and feat will interact. That task gets harder every year. It's those who find the unintended combos that really push the power creep.
In my mind, power creep comes from unintended interaction. You can't know how every PrC and feat will interact. That task gets harder every year. It's those who find the unintended combos that really push the power creep.
Yes! Thank you!
I loathe . . . loathe, I say . . . seeing things along the lines of, "I made a feral half-illithid githzerai warlock with feats from (insert various 3.0 and 3.5 splatbooks here) and he's crazy-strong. The warlock is sooooooo overpowered!" on these boards over and over and bloody over again. If there is power creep in the game (which I'm not convinced of--quite frankly I think it's possible, and happens, that WotC can make cool things that are not overpowering, and are possibly even weak; I'd say something like the soulknife fits the bill of a "Wow, cool!" class that's anything but overly-strong), it's from the law of unintended consequences that arises when multiple non-core supplements are blended into a twinkie whole.
And really, I can't fault WotC for that. For me, a book is solidly non-broken when all the material in it is balanced both with the other material in the book, as well as the core rules. With all the books that need to be published/sold to keep the money coming in (which is kinda the point of a business), it'd be impossible to balance every single item in book X with every single item in book Y, and that's before trying to take 3.0 material into account.
And D&D is different than something like Magic: The Gathering, where power creep is much more pronounced, due to the nature of the game. D&D, as a team game, almost always has (or at least should have) everyone working out of the same books, so regardless of how many supplements a group has, everyone is working off the same playing field. In Magic, a game played with individual vs. individual, one can't control what cards their opponent has access to. Consequently, if newer cards are stronger, then everyone needs to buy new packs to keep up. If someone in a D&D party buys a new book, everyone else can share it, or, alternately, the DM can just say "no."
And that's the other great tool of the game that has kept many a D&D group strong but is somehow considered irrelevant on these boards. The DM has the final authority on what is or is not allowed in his game, whether because of perceived brokenness, actual brokenness, it not fitting in the setting, a general distaste for the material, or any other reason. If you really, truly, honestly, think that the warlock is a terrible blight upon the game's existence because it gets damage reduction, then say, "No."
"No?"
"No."
Because in a good D&D group, nobody cares about how many d6s you can trick out of a hypothetical hulking hurler twink. Nobody cares about a warlock/ur-priest/mystic theurge build that gets caster level 100 in ten different classes. Nobody cares about the words "Oberoni Fallacy."
A good D&D group cares, above all else, about having a good time. And if some rule/class/PrC/feat/spell/item, for whatever reason (and whether or not the criticism of the r/c/p/f/s/i is even warranted) is getting in the way of the fun, then get rid of it.
Bam! Problem solved.
And if you do think the new stuff is too power creepy (which is indeed your right), then don't buy it. Bam! Problem solved.
Powergamers are the ones looking for the latest & greatest tweak, so they will buy a new book if it has something in it to exploit, whether a straight-forward item, feat, or ability that is more powerful, or something that opens a new loophole.
I think Spamfiltre touched on a point I wanted to make. I don't think that each supplement taken as a whole is necessarily higher-powered than its predecessors; however, I do think that the highest-powered items in each supplement are plucked out and used more frequently, and this process ratchets up the power level over time.
Each new supplement typically includes 1 or 2 classes or PrCs that are noticeably more powerful than the median. Magic of Faerun, for example, included the Spelldancer and Incantatrix. Because of these PrCs it is generally considered an overpowered supplement. However, it also includes below-median PrCs such as the Harper Priest and Mage Killer. The average power level of the book is probably not as high as we imagine.
While that balance would solve the power problem in a vacuum, these supplemental rules are being added to an existing framework of rules and choices. No one is likely to play a below-median PrC or class. The fact that Complete Warrior contains the Samurai and Knight Protector does make up for the fact that it contains the Frenzied Berserker and Dervish. The balance that may exist in the supplement is washed away; the strongest mechanics are stripped from the book, and the rest is left for the vultures.
The difficulty presented for game designers is obvious: do they solve the "cream-skimming" problem by producing only close-to-median supplements, or do they continue to produce supplements with strong and weak material, knowing that only the strong will be used (and overall power will thereby increase)?
It's easy to see how power creep happens, and why it's hard to defeat.
Just because you found a way to pimp the system, doesn't mean that the system as a whole has power creeped.
For those of you who are curious, I get the phrase "Pimp the System" from Heroes Unlimited, by Paladium Books. One line tells the players to remember that this is just a game, and to not "Pimp the System or trick your GM".
I'm now going to address some things that I've heard point by point.
DR. Just because the warlock gets it, doesn't mean he's over powered. Unlike the barbarian, the warlocks DR can be negated by a cold iron weapon. Those aren't even very expensive. You can safely assume that any band of NPCs that the players encounter has at least one cold iron weapon with them, even if it isn't magical.
Divine Metamagic. This feat has the potential to be abused especially when combined with the Persistent Spell feat from Complete Arcane. It lets you cast a spell with a 24 hour duration of any level, for the meager cost of 6 turn undead attempts.
Book of Exalted Deeds. This book is only for experienced players. Remember that the players cannot willingly commit ANY evil act or they loose just about everything that they have from this book. If players want to use material for this book warn them ahead of time that you will be a bastard about it. If they slip up, even once, they loose everything. Also, if a character has dedicated himself to the Vow of Poverty (for example), and for one reason or another, is forced to break that vow, and then the player decides that, since he's no longer getting the bonuses for the vow, he just won't pay any attention to it, the character should be punished. Anybody who is taking that kind of oath to their god, and a good god at that, only for the power that comes with it, will be looked down on.
Races of Stone. I've heard lot's of people complain about the weapons in here being overpowered. Particularly the Goliath Greathammer and the Dwarven Greatspear (I think that's what it's called anyway). Now I'll be looking at the greathammer, because I can remember the stats for it off the top of my head. 2d6 bludgeoning damage, x4 critical, +2 bonus on sunder attempts. Now if we compare that to the Great Axe (1d12 slashing, x3 critical) we see that it has it's critical multiplier increased by 1, and a +2 bonus to sunder. Now are you saying that a feat that gives you that, for only a single weapon, is overpowered? Improved Sunder gives you a +4 bonus on sunder checks and you don't provoke attacks of opportunities when attempting to sunder. That and Improved Sunder applies to all weapons, not just one. I think this is a case where the exotic weapons in the core books were underpowered (except for the spiked chain), and now they're simply making Exotic Weapon Proficiency a viable option.
Frenzied Berserker. This is one of my favorites. It's been mentioned here as one of the better prestige classes in Complete Warrior. Anybody who claims that it's overpowered, however, needs to think again. As Happycows said, he has huge weaknesses to go with his strengths. And even his strengths are not as impressive as some may think. Here's an example for you.
I just recently had a frenzied berserker who died on me. This was due to some bad luck on the dice (I rolled 3 2s in a roll to strike, and I only need to land one blow to have survived), but that's beside the point. He was a Half-Giant, lvl 3 Barbarian (Ape Totem), lvl 2 Fighter, lvl 2 Psi-Warrior, lvl 1 frenzied berserker. I really pimped the system with him. I was dealing out more damage per round then the 12th lvl rogue in the party was. I was using the Large Sized Goliath Greathammer mentioned above, and that x4 critical was wonderful. The fact that my DM let me have a 3rd edition rhino hide (double damage on charge) was even better.
Do you know what the worst thing about him was? I could create a straight up, core book cleric, that could beat him in one on one combat. This wasn't even a character that I designed with the intent of being able to defeat my Half-Giant. This was the Dwarven Cleric that I was planning on playing next when I realized that the Frenzied Berserker wasn't going to live long. Now it wasn't like the cleric would wipe the floor with him, but he would win about 2/3 times.
On to a few other things. I think the problem is not power creeping, but players who pimp the system. I've found that every DM deals with things differently. Our normal DM just doesn't allow things that aren't from the core rules, so players are all just from the PHB and if they want a prestige class then it's from the DMG. I allow all the official books that I own, which to date is almost all of them. I let the players take whatever they want as long as they can explain why their character, as a person, would have (or be) that. I just warn them that if they start to pimp the system, that I will pimp the system with my NPCs and kill them with something that's less powerful then they are. I can do this because I know the system better then any of them. I almost managed to wipe out an entire part of 5 1st level characters with a 1st level adept, warrior, and expert. And the worst part was, I wasn't even trying to kill them.
I think I've rambled on long enough. My general point is that the system isn't more power creeping, the players are just able to pimp it better. A party that doesn't power game will never notice the difference.
I think it quite simply comes down to a finite number of ideas. For a game where part of the appeal is a steady stream of new material, in case of D&D, classes, feats and other "crunchy bits", there is simply only so much that can be done.
Hence, when the options are exhausted, the boundaries of the system leaves only one way, which is up, by escalating the levels of power.
One of my reservations about 3.x is that it seemed to take the most powerful class in 2nd edition (arguably the cleric), made him better, and then made everything as powerful. The prestige classes, feats and races seems to be going the same way. To stand out, it has to be at least equally powerful, if not more powerful or outlandish, simply to cause a splash.
Its a basic element of game expansion, I believe, and one that most companies stumble over.
2d6 bludgeoning damage, x4 critical, +2 bonus on sunder attempts. Now if we compare that to the Great Axe (1d12 slashing, x3 critical) we see that it has it's critical multiplier increased by 1, and a +2 bonus to sunder. Now are you saying that a feat that gives you that, for only a single weapon, is overpowered? Improved Sunder gives you a +4 bonus on sunder checks and you don't provoke attacks of opportunities when attempting to sunder. That and Improved Sunder applies to all weapons, not just one. I think this is a case where the exotic weapons in the core books were underpowered (except for the spiked chain), and now they're simply making Exotic Weapon Proficiency a viable option.
I'm not going to create a long discussion about this, but I think that Goliath hammer is much better than a greataxe. Actually, no medium size weapons should do 2d6 and have a x4 critical... that's to much, at least I believe that.
Frenzied Berserker. This is one of my favorites. It's been mentioned here as one of the better prestige classes in Complete Warrior. Anybody who claims that it's overpowered, however, needs to think again. As Happycows said, he has huge weaknesses to go with his strengths. And even his strengths are not as impressive as some may think. Here's an example for you.
I just recently had a frenzied berserker who died on me. This was due to some bad luck on the dice (I rolled 3 2s in a roll to strike, and I only need to land one blow to have survived), but that's beside the point. He was a Half-Giant, lvl 3 Barbarian (Ape Totem), lvl 2 Fighter, lvl 2 Psi-Warrior, lvl 1 frenzied berserker.
That's not a frenzied berserker, that's a frenzied multiclass character ;)
However, IMO the problem isn't so much power creep as it is the huge disparities in power. You have classes which are just purely crazy, like the incanatrix and the frenzied berserker, and you have classes which are terrible, like the dread pirate or the acrobat. Then you have crazy spells like spikes being created.
Some PrCs are going to be more powerful than others, a good example of this is the 3.0 templar. Sure, it's more powerful than most, but it's not likely to break the game anytime soon. It's just a bit above the power curve, but a templar certainly doesn't dominate the game.
Then you get to classes like the incanatrix and the frenzied berserker which aren't even remotely balanced. These guys are going to dominate games. Deathless frenzy? Super power attack? Instant Metamagic? The hulking hurler? What were they thinking?
The problem if you ask me is that the designers tend to be very one sided with enthusiasm towards some classes and totally lacking with others. They show far too much favoritism toward certain classes, and totally ignore others.
And that's what needs to be fixed, the power gap between classes. You just can't have some guy playing a frenzied berserker and another guy playing an order of the bow initiate. There's just no way those two guys can form a reasonable party. Slight power creep is inevitable, but the creation of insane power classes can be avoided, and so too can the creation of pathetic crap classes. And that's what the game needs to focus on. It's ok to have a templar like class now and then, but you cannot have god classes.
This doesn't matter for experienced players, because they can connect the dots as is most appropriate for whatever game they are playing. For new players, with nothing to compare to, except Everquest or Diablo, it's harder and leads to many of the wild combos we see or hear about