Power Creep

[Cuddly]

Let's start a list of examples of power creep in D&D 3x.

I'll go first:
In 3.0 Epic Handbook, there's an epic feat that allows you to make a full attack at the end of a charge.

In Complete Champion, Barbarians get to make a full attack at the end of a charge. As a first level ability.

[Farmer42]

I'd say pounce in and of itself is wrong, on so many levels, after having seen what a were-tiger is capable of as a PC. YMMV.

But, beyond that, Divine Metamagic.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Let's start a list of examples of power creep in D&D 3x.

I'll go first:
In 3.0 Epic Handbook, there's an epic feat that allows you to make a full attack at the end of a charge.

In Complete Champion, Barbarians get to make a full attack at the end of a charge. As a first level ability.

That's not the best example: yes, Pounce for a one-level dip is a mistake (literally; it's supposed to be the sixth level ability), but Pounce exists in core. The problem with Dire Charge is that it sucks.

[Nebo_]

But, beyond that, Divine Metamagic.

I don't consider that power creep because I don't think the designers really knew how powerful it is. As for the lion totem barbarian, that should be a level 6 ability, by which point, it's not so bad.

[Zincorium]

Power creep is really just another term for unintended consequences. I think in many cases it was just someone trying to make their new feat/monster/prc worth using in a game, so they gave it something new.

The problem arises when you have thousands of people actively looking for rules combinations between all books wotc has made being given material that has maybe had 10 people look it over, tops.

[Talic]

As most PC's can't attack with more than one weapon before level 6, the full attack issue is more or less moot. That said, I believe Psionic Lion's Charge grants a pounce ability at a slightly lower level, along with being a pretty good feat to boost attacks at later levels, by sinking extra points into the manifest...

But yeah, I agree. The fact that Chaotic Fighter types can get pounce for a 1 level dip, with rage to boot, whereas lawful types have to focus on other more difficult ways is a bit off. It's rewarding alignment types, which I'm not 100% peachy with.

[tyckspoon]

The Tome of Battle is power creep, and quite deliberately. It's not always a bad thing (for another example, there are now several more easily acquired and mundane feats that do what used to be the prerogative of Epic feats. This is because those Epic feats sucked.) Most of the rest of what people call power creep is just an object lesson in Combinatorial Explosion. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CombinatorialExplosion?from=Main.CombinatoricExplo sion)

[Reinboom]

Player's Handbook 2, slightly, not counting the dragon shaman, is a bit of creep.
I consider that a good thing, though.
Tome of Battle is blatant creep, however, I also consider it a good thing.

Really, it seems that whenever wizards has done power creep intentionally, it's been a good thing.
Just, people get distracted by everything unintentional.

[Cuddly]

MIC is full of power creep, as is SC. Deliberate power creep. It's not combinatorial whatever; it's marketing strategy. Dungeons and Dragons: The Gathering.

[Talic]

MIC is full of power creep, as is SC. Deliberate power creep. It's not combinatorial whatever; it's marketing strategy. Dungeons and Dragons: The Gathering.

Just because it's marketing strategy doesn't mean it's not Cominatorial Explosion.

The more options you have, the more powerful and reliable you'll be at accomplishing a specific goal. Yes, that works for CCGs. It also works for Race, Feat, and Skill selection.

[Reinboom]

MIC is full of power creep, as is SC. Deliberate power creep. It's not combinatorial whatever; it's marketing strategy. Dungeons and Dragons: The Gathering.

I've never understood the argument. :smallconfused:
M:tG tends to go down in power level over the years. If you exclude mirrodin as a mistake, I believe Magic has done pretty well. The last couple years have at least been the most balanced and fun time to play standard.


Spell Compendium offers more options, more power? Somewhat. There are a couple awesome combos in there. Nerveskitter + Contingency. A few absolutely wonderful spells. Benign Transposition. But the only that screams "OMG, I'M BROKEN!" is Programmed Amnesia. And that has to compete with the likes of Gate and Time Stop.
It's also interesting to note that Spell Compendium -is- just a collection of spells from mostly other sources. A few spells in it has been increased in level and a few decreased to make them more worthwhile or more balanced - and was actually a pretty fair test at making a decent balanced spell book.
I would say that the spell compendium is actually a power decrease overall from core. Just, when combined with core, appears as a power increase simply due to the options and the cheap tricks (once again, Nerveskitter + Contingency).

MiC? Oh there is blatant power creep here. Healing Belt for example. But once again, nothing that - Belt of Battle aside - breaks the game as much as some of the crap in core. Yes, there will always be hiccups and oversights, it's hard to prevent, however... it has come to my realization that, if one was to say "No Core Classes, No Core Magic Items except required enhancements", the game would actually appear more fair. Albeit awkward.

[Talic]

I've never understood the argument. :smallconfused:
M:tG tends to go down in power level over the years. If you exclude mirrodin as a mistake, I believe Magic has done pretty well. The last couple years have at least been the most balanced and fun time to play standard.

Each block, yes. But there is power creep.

In type 2 tournament play, each Base set reduces the power. Following sets slowly add more options and power. Each time a new set block comes out, an old block goes out. That means when set 1 of block x becomes legal, sets 1, 2, and 3 of block y just became illegal. Over time, the power will creep back up. As each Arc progresses, the overall power level raises. Then, the next base set brings it back down.

Similar to Editions of D&D.

[AslanCross]

I've never understood the argument. :smallconfused:
M:tG tends to go down in power level over the years. If you exclude mirrodin as a mistake, I believe Magic has done pretty well. The last couple years have at least been the most balanced and fun time to play standard.


I tend to agree. There's a reason why "nerfed" versions of powerful cards (Lightning bolt >> Shock, Dark Ritual >> Cabal Ritual) came out afterward. Deck concepts aren't as unbeatable as they used to be (Stasis <_<). Granted that Mirrodin was an unholy mistake and should never have been, Magic's actually seen more broken days.

Looking at Lion Totem Barbarian: It was clearly intended to be taken as a pure Barbarian class. Of course, they forgot that one could dip in it just for Pounce. Unintended consequences. That doesn't mean things are any less worse.

I'm just glad D&D isn't meant to be PvP.


Each block, yes. But there is power creep.

In type 2 tournament play, each Base set reduces the power. Following sets slowly add more options and power. Each time a new set block comes out, an old block goes out. That means when set 1 of block x becomes legal, sets 1, 2, and 3 of block y just became illegal. Over time, the power will creep back up. As each Arc progresses, the overall power level raises. Then, the next base set brings it back down.

Similar to Editions of D&D.

EDIT: I disagree. Champions of Kamigawa had some pretty nasty stuff, but by the time Saviors came out, it really offered nothing really awesome to the block. The same was true for the Ravnica block. Selesnya had that really cheap Ghazi-Glare combo. Guildpact offered the pwnsome Orzhov (<3), true, but Dissension didn't really add any punch as far as I could tell. Rakdos had a tendency to burn out, Simic was hard to operate quickly, and the Azorius paradigm doesn't really seem to work in today's play environment anymore.

Not that I'm defending every design decision WotC has made with Magic. I hated what they did in Planar Chaos and decided to quit it for good.

[Fenix_of_Doom]

Each block, yes. But there is power creep.

In type 2 tournament play, each Base set reduces the power. Following sets slowly add more options and power. Each time a new set block comes out, an old block goes out. That means when set 1 of block x becomes legal, sets 1, 2, and 3 of block y just became illegal. Over time, the power will creep back up. As each Arc progresses, the overall power level raises. Then, the next base set brings it back down.

Similar to Editions of D&D.

Thank you for this explanation, the argument finally makes some sense now.

Edit:


EDIT: I disagree. Champions of Kamigawa had some pretty nasty stuff, but by the time Saviors came out, it really offered nothing really awesome to the block. The same was true for the Ravnica block. Selesnya had that really cheap Ghazi-Glare combo. Guildpact offered the pwnsome Orzhov (<3), true, but Dissension didn't really add any punch as far as I could tell. Rakdos had a tendency to burn out, Simic was hard to operate quickly, and the Azorius paradigm doesn't really seem to work in today's play environment anymore.


If a set contains even one card that is more powerful/useful then a card in one of the earlier sets, then there is powercreep, not much but there is.



Not that I'm defending every design decision WotC has made with Magic. I hated what they did in Planar Chaos and decided to quit it for good.

This seems rather silly, if you didn't like one small portion, why quit the whole game? Simply don't play with that part of it.

[Reinboom]

Each block, yes. But there is power creep.

In type 2 tournament play, each Base set reduces the power. Following sets slowly add more options and power. Each time a new set block comes out, an old block goes out. That means when set 1 of block x becomes legal, sets 1, 2, and 3 of block y just became illegal. Over time, the power will creep back up. As each Arc progresses, the overall power level raises. Then, the next base set brings it back down.

Similar to Editions of D&D.

I believe there is a semantics issue here.
What I believe you are considering power creep, I just call availability of options.
What I am considering power creep is along the lines of the difference between Counterspell and Mana Drain. Or potion of cure light wounds and healing belt. Where A > B in most situations when they serve the same role.
This happens rather little in my experiences.

[Talic]

I believe there is a semantics issue here.
What I believe you are considering power creep, I just call availability of options.
What I am considering power creep is along the lines of the difference between Counterspell and Mana Drain. Or potion of cure light wounds and healing belt. Where A > B in most situations when they serve the same role.
This happens rather little in my experiences.

That's what Combinatorial Explosion addresses. There is a direct relation between the amount of options you have, and your final power level. Especially when you can use both Counterspell and Mana Drain in that deck, or Supplement the Healing Belt with potions.

[Reinboom]

That's what Combinatorial Explosion addresses. There is a direct relation between the amount of options you have, and your final power level. Especially when you can use both Counterspell and Mana Drain in that deck, or Supplement the Healing Belt with potions.

Alright, that makes more sense then.
I must still, however, abhor the idea of "Dungeons and Dragons the gathering" comment, as it in now fair way shows a decent example for either game.
In the overall scale of things, M:tG is 'less broken' (due to mostly being more defined and with more focused designers) than D&D. The marketing scheme may be similar, however, this is no more than the process of which a company uses money to produce material. Which... the company would fail if they didn't produce material. And thus no more D&D. So, I personally have no issue with it.

I will hold to that I consider this a crude and rather lousy comparison, given that the tone of it tries to compare Magic as a focal horror point in the game industry. Which it most definitely isn't.

*cough* aside!
Yes, power creep exists in D&D. No, I don't consider it significant. Yes, I consider that a viable fix is to just ban core classes. :smalltongue:

[Douglas]

But the only that screams "OMG, I'M BROKEN!" is Programmed Amnesia.
Did you notice Bite of the Werebear and its lower level versions? +16 enhancement to strength, +8 con, +2 dex, +7 or 8 natural armor, Power Attack and Blind-Fight as bonus feats, and a bite attack, all for a mere 6th level spell - for a druid, who already has wild shape, and it stacks with wild shape.

[Starbuck_II]

Did you notice Bite of the Werebear and its lower level versions? +16 enhancement to strength, +8 con, +2 dex, +7 or 8 natural armor, Power Attack and Blind-Fight as bonus feats, and a bite attack, all for a mere 6th level spell - for a druid, who already has wild shape, and it stacks with wild shape.

It is a Druid, they are already powerful. That spellis just overkill.

[KIDS]

I do agree about the power creep theory, but I think it is primarily rebalancing, and power creep is the side-product of this (sometimes) failed rebalancing.
However, the theory about all the new feats and books being a power creep by number of combinations I just can't agree with. Options are good, but D&D just isn't tuned for "stacking". For example, consider that after all those feats, spells, classes, splatbooks and sources (correct me if you know of an example counter):

- Sleep is still the best lvl 1 spell for almost any situation; Color Spray too
- No mass disable spell has been printed more powerful than lvl 2 Glitterdust
- Core Druid 20 is still the most awesome, most scaling and most desireable build; Cleric 20 is close too
- No spell has ever outdid the cheesy power of Polymorph
- No 9th level spell has ever been printed with more raw power than Time Stop, Gate and Shapechange
- Mithral still remains the best material for all armor purposes
- The first infinite loop abuse is in Candle of Invocation, and second is Shapechange/Gate
- No ToB class can outdamage a core Power-Attack Barbarian (that is without any Leap Attack, Pounce or Shock Trooper cheese)

Now, there have been more possibilities for optmization, like Telflammar Shadowlords, Dervishes, Swift Hunters, Daring Outlaws, Initiates of Sevenfold Veil.... yep, there have been. But their power compared to core (fighter-ish at least) classes is only a marginal gain, whereas the power creep in other areas pales before the cheey power of above spells/builds, never surpassing them. So while I'm aware of the number inflation and power creep eventually being bad in the long run, I'm not worried about it just yet.

[Person_Man]

Core PHB: You can get Hide in Plain Site at ECL 8 as part of an otherwise mediocre prestige class with annoying requirements. The Skills section stipulates that you can Hide as part of a Move action.

Drow of the Underdark: With one feat (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57352) and a one level dip in Warlock or Dragonfire Adept, you can get Hide in Plain Site. The feat specifies that you can Hide in Plain Site as a Swift Action. With the Darkstalker feat from Lords of Madness, you can Hide from enemies with Blindsense, Tremorsense, Scent, etc. So if you can get a high enough Hide Check (quite easy to do, since its effected by Size, Dex, and a wide variety of magic items and class abilities), you essentially can't be targeted by anything except area of effect attacks. At level 1.

[Fhaolan]

Given that I've been playing D&D for a *long* time, I find power creep to be insidious, but in many cases it's really just number creep.

Let me pick one single aspect. Attributes.

In original D&D, before AD&D and Basic, attributes were rolled 3d6 in order. This was limiting and forced you to play characters that you may have had no interest in. However, high attributes might gain you a +1 to something. For example, 15 Con or higher gets you a +1 hp per HD. That's it. It's interesting, but not really earthshattering.

Now Basic is published. We're still 3d6 in order, but the effects have changed. 15 Con or higher gets you a +1 hp as before, but now 17 Con is +2 hp, and 18 Con is +3. Getting a higher Con is now more important.

AD&D is published. 15 Con gets you +1 hp, 16 Con gets you +2 hp, 17 Con gets you +2, unless you're a fighter, which gets you +3, and 18 Con gets you +2/+4 if you're a fighter. Now you're starting to get the addiction. High stats make a difference. To get those high stats, alternate optional rolling schemes are introduced in the DMG. 4d6 drop 1, 3d6 rolled multiple times per ability, etc. and you can re-arrange at will.

2nd edition is published. Con means much the same thing, but the range is expanded. Now you can get 19+ Con, with bonuses that continue to scale up (if you're a fighter). A point-buy attribute generation scheme is introduced as yet another option.

3rd edition is published. 3d6 in order is completely abandoned, with 4d6 drop 1, set arrays, and a more elaborate point-buy become standard. Con bonuses now start at 12 (+1), the +4 at 18 is now available to all characters, not just fighters, and stats above 18 are becoming commonplace.

As long as all the opponents the characters face are being boosted similarly, it becomes number creep instead. A person with 18 Con in 3rd edition may have a much higher hp bonus than the extremely hard-to-get 18 Con in classic D&D, but relative to the challenges the character faces that bonus is evened out. It would be like taking all the numbers in 3rd edition and multiplying them all by 10. There would be a momentary excitement as the characters have 120 Con with a +10hp/level bonus, but once the game starts and the players realize that their opponent's numbers were also multiplied by 10, the excitement goes away. :smallbiggrin:

[Reinboom]

Technically... OD&D didn't say write them down in order. Rather "Write the Scores down as you roll them, next to the names of the Abilities"
So, you could roll them and write them down, as you do so, next to the ability you want it to be by.
Also, you can exchange stats 2 for 1 at character creation to bump stats higher, but only stats that were a main stat for a class.

Just saying.

[Darkxarth]

*stuff*

It would be like taking all the numbers in 3rd edition and multiplying them all by 10. There would be a momentary excitement as the characters have 120 Con with a +10hp/level bonus, but once the game starts and the players realize that their opponent's numbers were also multiplied by 10, the excitement goes away. :smallbiggrin:

Oh dear God, what have you done? We must pray that Wizards never sees this post or thinks about doing something like this. :smalleek:

[CASTLEMIKE]

Power creep isn't really really that bad when you consider what a standard mid level L11 base PC class using 25 point generation can do. Just utilizing the basic core or SRD rules and suggested wealth by level without Infinite Loops or Magic Items the PC could not acquire by making them himself with the proper crafting feat or by having another PC of similar level in the party create them with the appropiate crafting feat or having a NPC of similar level cast the spell for the PC as a professional caster.

The things a core L20 PC full spellcaster can do with core PRCs are already amazing and just adding a single feat or two from another source book can push them almost off the scale. A single feat Arcane Disciple Summoning opens up Thaumaturgist to Sorcerers and Wizards or No Experience point Miracles as a Spell like ability under ACM High Arcana with the Luck domain.

The PC can choose what class play so a Cleric - 11 who has maximized his Diplomacy skill ranks and can cast Planar Ally to call a 10 HD Wish granting Efreeti or Noble Djinni from the Monster Manual/SRD is a strong choice for any power creep test standard IMO. I can already hear the cries of "Wait No sane DM will let you abuse Calling and Wishes that way............"

Planar Ally
Conjuration (Calling) [see text for lesser planar ally]
Level: Clr 6
Effect: One or two called elementals or outsiders, totaling no more than 12 HD, which cannot be more than 30 ft. apart when they appear

This spell functions like lesser planar ally, except you may call a single creature of 12 HD or less, or two creatures of the same kind whose Hit Dice total no more than 12. The creatures agree to help you and request your return payment together.

XP Cost
250 XP.

I use the PRC enhanced Cleric -7, Thaumaturgist -1, Loremaster -3 for my standard for judging power creep.

Improved Ally
When a thaumaturgist casts a planar ally spell (including the lesser and greater versions), he makes a Diplomacy check to convince the creature to aid him for a reduced payment. If the thaumaturgist’s Diplomacy check adjusts the creature’s attitude to helpful the creature will work for 50% of the standard fee, as long as the task is one that is not against its nature.

The thaumaturgist’s improved ally class feature only works when the planar ally shares at least one aspect of alignment with the thaumaturgist.

A thaumaturgist can have only one such ally at a time, but he may bargain for tasks from other planar allies normally.

[Jarawara]

As long as all the opponents the characters face are being boosted similarly, it becomes number creep instead.

But alas, over the years and the editions, they have not. Specifically the lower leveled monsters (I think the higher leveled monsters have kept pace with the PCs, though I'm less familiar with them.)

Consider the Friendly Neighborhood Orc.

In Original D&D, the Orc had 1d6 of hit points, and if he scored a hit on you, did 1d6 of damage. You, the valiant 1st level fighter, had 1d6+1 worth of hit points (no maximum dice at 1st level!), and if your constitution score was really high, you got a whole additional hit point. If you scored a hit with your weapon (didn't matter what weapon you had, they all did the same), you'd do 1d6 of damage to the Orc, with a whole +1 if you had a really high strength score. Edit: Nope, wrong about the strength - there were no bonuses to damage for high strength. Just a straight d6 of damage per hit.

Run the numbers on that, and you'll find that you can easily lose a one on one fight with an Orc, especially if you were unlucky enough to roll low for hp, while the Orc happens to roll high for his.

So we go on to Basic D&D. Mr. Fighter gets boosted, he now had a d8 for hit points (still had to roll at 1st level), and was more likely to get a CON-bonus to his hit points (needing only a 13 or better for that +1), and might get more than that (+2 at 16, +3 at 18). Similarly, his weapon might do a d8 of damage (longsword), and his strength would likely give him a +1 or better in damage. All around, he was significantly beefed up.

And the Orc? His hit dice went from a d6 to a d8, though in modules he was still usually listed as having only 3 hit points. Unless otherwise noted, his damage was still a standard d6, though he was permitted to carry better weapons. Barely any improvement at all.

To Advanced D&D! Now this, on the surface, was actually a step back. After all, in Basic, you could get a bonus from your abilities starting with at 13, while in Advanced, you typically needed a 15 or better. But the 4d6 drop 1 system came into play at about this point, making it about as likely to get the 15 now as it was to get the 13 before. And the higher scores gave higher bonuses (18's now gave a +4, and an 18 strength gave fighters an additional percentage roll, potentially giving up to a +3 to hit, +6 in damage!). The fighter also got a d10 in hit points now. Plus, while not listed in the rules, it started to become a bit more common to give the characters a guaranteed 50% hit points at 1st level, so most fighters started with 5-10 hit points plus their CON bonus.

The Orc? d8 in hit points, though in modules they were at least now listed as having a standard 5 hit points, instead of the 3 hp in earlier adventures. Still only d6 in damage unless otherwise noted, though now you could have a 'Half-Orc' NPC in the group to surprise the PC's.

Unearthed Arcana (the 80's version) and 2nd edition brought about higher stat scores possible, making 19's and above much more possible. Unearthed Arcana had some goofy system where you picked your class before rollling your stats, and then rolled an insane number of dice, dropping all but three, to get your score. (For example, I think the fighter rolled NINE d6, drop the lowest six, to get his starting strength score.) It also added Weapon Specialization, available to 1st level fighters, to give a +1 to hit, +2 damage to his chosen weapon. And I think, but I might be wrong about this, but I think the "minimum 50% hit points at 1st level" is actually codified into the rules somewhere about now, though by this point, many of the players had already moved on to maximum hit points at 1st level.

And the Orc? Heh. Absolutely no change. d8 hit points, 5 average, damage by weapon type, which *could* be a d8, but still often was only a d6. Though to be fair, by this point in the development of the gaming community, the whole concept that "Orcs can't level up" had been discarded, so there were quite a few high level Orc fighters out there. But I am still looking at the analysis of the 1st level fighter vs the standard Orc.

Then arrives 3rd edition! This cleaned up some of the earlier mess, and actually scaled down some of the power creep (for example, Weapon Specialization is now only available at 4th level and beyond). But with stat bonuses kicking in at a 12, and the 4d6 drop one as the standard system, it now was quite likely to get stat bonuses in many catagories. And, codefied right into the rules, there it is - maximum hit points at first level! Then add in feats, and you get a variety of boosts to your standard 1st level fighter.

Now here comes the good part: The Orc also got boosted. The Orc, long having been described as being strong and menacing, has never once gotten a strength-based bonus to his damage, over all these years. Now, he gets a standard +2 to damage, assuming a racial average strength of 14. Plus, damage is listed now as by weapon-type, not just an assumed d6. And those Orcs do love their Greataxes, so it's quite possible they get a d12+2 for their damage! Finally, they are a threat again!

And their hit points? d8, no constitution bonus, and in fact the listed average hit points actually went DOWN, from 5 in AD&D, to 4, in 3.0? WTF?!?

And correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't have 3.5 books handy, but wasn't the listing for the Orc modified to change the standard weaponry back to less damaging types, like swords and axes, so they're only doing d8+2 damage on average? They finally make the Orc a threat again, so they feel they need to correct this and scale them back down again?

This... this is a clear power creep, not scaling on each side, but clearly boosting the PC's over that of the standard Orcs, to the point that modern Orcs are a mere shadow of the formidable threats they once were, so many long editions ago. And yes, I know I can boost them by giving them PC levels and max hit points, and give them higher stat bonuses, and yada yada yada. But hey, if I wanted uber Orcs, I could have done that in early D&D. I want the regular run-of-the-mill Orc to be a threat, and not need the artificially boosted elite Orcs, just to match the modern PCs.

I hear from many players these days on how boring it is to fight Orcs. Well, that's because you aren't fighting Orcs, you're fighting Gimps. Come back with me to the 70's, you'll be fighting, and likely fleeing from, the freaking Uruk-Hai! You'll learn to fear the symbol of the White Hand of Saruman once again!

The power creep simply has not been equal on both sides.

*~*

This was originally going to be my response to an old thread, "Are Orcs Overpowered", but I never got around to posting it there. Short answer: No. Orcs are *Underpowered*, and need to be boosted back up to their former glory.

*~*

I also think the power-creep has also affected higher levels, not necessarily against high level monsters (again, I don't play enough high level stuff to know how PC's stack against Illthiliads or Demons or Howard the Duck or whatever) - but more in how high level characters can now totally pawn the lower level monsters. I remember back in 1st edition D&D, when my group of 9th level guys came across a large tribe of Orcs, we had to decide if we wanted to fight them, avoid them, negotiate with them, maybe even offer alliance with them against a common enemy. Nowadays, it seems a group of 9th level PC's wouldn't bother to consider options, as the Orcs are simply an inconvenience to them, and would be a waste of time to ally with them, negotiation would simply be a 'roleplay choice' only. I've even seen players offer to go deal with them alone, so as to not waste the other's playing time. ("Deal with", meaning, kill every last one of them. Does not seem wise to me, but I've seen them get away with it.)

The whole dynamics of high level PCs and low level monsters has changed, for the worse, in my view.

*~*~*

I want my fearsome Orcs back!

[Telok]

Oh dear God, what have you done? We must pray that Wizards never sees this post or thinks about doing something like this. :smalleek:

World of Warcraft. Most of my gaming group plays it and I seriously think that you could knock the last two digits off every number in there and the game wouldn't change at all. Granted when WoW first came out I thought you could just divide every number in the game by 10 and it wouldn't change.

It's just useless big numbers for no reason than to inflate player egos.

As for power creep... The spell Gate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm) as it stands today, compared with the AD&D version.

First it causes an interdimensional connection between the plane it is cast on and the plane on which dwells a specific being of great power. Second the utterance of the spell attracts the attention of the sought-after dweller on the other plane. When casting the spell the wizard must name the entity he desires to use the gate. There is a 100% certainty that something steps through the gate.

If the matter is trifling the being might leave, inflict an appropriate punishment on the wizard, or attack the wizard. If the matter is of middling importance the being can take some positive action to set matter right and then demand appropriate repayment. If the matter is urgent the being can act accordingly and demand whatever it wants afterwards. Such beings generally avoid direct conflict with their equals or betters.

Casting this spell ages the wizard five years.

The old version is a campaign ending spell of epic scope, if used correctly. If you use it badly, you can find yourself exploring the concept of "a fate worse than death." The 3.5 version is much stronger, simply because there's no limit on how many creatues nor the HD of anything you can call through. There is a limit on what you can control, but not on what you can call through. And if you don't want to pay xp, just open the gate to a place where something can/will kill your foe and get or force them to go through.

Yeah, there's power creep. I fully expect to see the whole "bigger and better" thing in 4th edition.

[Yakk]

I want my fearsome Orcs back!

Then, Fear the Orc! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71118)

Enjoy!

[Fhaolan]

Oh dear God, what have you done? We must pray that Wizards never sees this post or thinks about doing something like this. :smalleek:

Luckily, it's already been done. Synnabar was basicaly D&D with all the numbers multiplied by 100 for increased granularity. :smalltongue:

[KIDS]

I gotta admit, my comparison was based on 3.5 PHB + 3.5 books, but comparisons of between editions are pretty interesting to read! Nice work...

[Cuddly]

Ah, here's another one(s):
Compare the benefits that Mages of the Arcane Order get to those who join the shadowy cabals in ToM. Mages of the Arcane Order: access to libraries (no spellbooks), and magical workshops (no material). At tenth level, they get a +2 bonus to cha checks with other MotAO. ToM: Borrow 1000 x caster level gp worth of magic items, 50% cost for certain magic items (like an umbral collar, greater, for 11k?), or 75% for all magic items that don't involve using a light spell.

[Theli]

Yeah, it's the lack of balance BETWEEN new options that really makes me despise most splatbooks.

I tend to like to stick to core + world specific... But even that is not without its power creep. (Especially when they implement world specific elements for game mechanics implemented in non-world splat books... That's really annoying.)