I would argue the likes of Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul are good power creep. Yes, they made pretty much every other Sorcerer subclass in the game irrelevant, but they did what Sorcerer players had been begging for for ages: Additional spells known. The biggest problem with Sorcerer was its lack of spells known. Only 15 in total hurt them a lot and made it harder for them to compete with other full casters. Both subclasses getting 10 additional spells known opened up so many new options for Sorcerer players. You no longer had to just pick the most powerful/optimal spells. You had extra spells that added a ton of flavor and utility to your game. It was amazing! Obviously picking from Wizard and Warlock spells was huge power creep and they got rid of that in 2024, but still. The fact that they gave Draconic Sorcerer spells shows that they learned their lesson from the power creep. Bringing an older subclass up to standard with the newer subclasses.
I mostly agree, I feel like being able to choose spells from multiple other classes was a bit too far for it. Personally, after they came out all the groups I play in gave similar extra spells known to other subclasses to make up for difference between the subclasses. I also like the 2024 change where all casters can ritual cast now, before I would sometimes take ritual caster on my sorcerers
Issue is that it made all the others irreverent. If you are Clockwork and I am a Draconic at the same table there will be some bad feelings about our choices!
Im called an optimizer for maxing my wisdom and playing a nature cleric and knowing how spirt guardians and sanctuary interact. I also when shoping for magic items asked specifically for less powerful items than were provided to me. Theres a level to this that a DM can curb like dont give the cleric plus 2 plate armor and a plus 2 shield and ring and cloak of protection. i wanted NONE of these items and told him what would happen. He still hasnt realized theres still a glaring weakness on my certain saves like intelligence
I think a lot of DMs end just like giving their players “good” magic items. It feels fun to do and rewarding. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with someone just knowing how interactions work and maxing their primary stat lol
I mean, Int saves aren't exactly common, so unless your GM creates a lot of custom creatures, or you frequently come up against psionic creatures, low Int saves aren't much of a weakness. Clerics are just really strong generally. They naturally have strong AC due to their proficiencies. Their main stat is one of the two most common saves. Their spell list is great early game and solid later. As a GM of a cleric myself, I can relate to the feeling, that the cleric is kinda op. At the same time, GMs can sometimes 'call you out' for the strangest of reasons. One time when playing a wizard, I and my sorcerer buddy were called cowards ooc by the GM, because we were taking cover behind a wall insted of just standing in the open and letting ourselves get shot at by the other side.
Dude, you're not optimizer for knowing how Spirit Guardian and Sanctuary interact. You're a PROBLEM PLAYER if you're using it while knowing full well that you found a loop hole in the game design. And maybe you don't have a lot of experience as a DM if you think it's that easy to find Monsters options that call for INT saves.
Spirit Guardians ends sanctuary, thats how they interact. There was a period in the 2014 rules where that wasn’t the case, but that was changed by errata years ago. 2024 rules did not make the same mistake.
Hunters need more love. Gloom Stalkers need a little more too. The nerfed stalkers a little too much. Rangers still need a little more identity with "Hunter's Mark" in particular. Otherwise, I'm totally cool with 2024. I'm sure there will be erratas on certain spells coming soon. So.
@@rodneygriffin7666 Id personally prefer hunters mark to not be such a class defining feature and replace the 13/17/20th level abilities with other things. That being said - it would have been cool if the hutner subclass was the "hunters mark" ranger and buffed that aspect a ton.
Powercreep is bound to happen. I'm glad they revamped older subclasses. My favorite is curbing single level dips with all subclasses pushed to 3rd level. Respects the class before the subclass & this, roleplay. Sorcerers are starting to understand their unknown origin. Warlocks making small deals with an entity unknown to them. Clerics devotion is to be tested, resolved with a diety. Wizards & Druids just needed one more level to cook. And more importantly, all but one are full casters. But the best of all, you can now make a lv20 character with no subclass to their name.
They've said that monsters are getting much tougher in 2024. What I'm seriously hoping for are... way more hit points, combat strategies/goals/personality for every stat block, more weaknesses to allow player choices to shine, less "bite and two claw" multiattacks, less anti-melee features, and more anti-ranged and anti-spellcaster features. Martials have the single-target damage and support that they needed to keep up. Now they need to just NOT ruin that by making all the enemies tougher to kill and hit in melee harder while being extra dangerous to be in melee against and having little to no ranged combat options. Otherwise, we'll just swing right back to casters being the only optimal choice again.
There were some 2014 class and subclass features that were so niche as to be wasted levels. I'm okay with power creeping those to something you can use sometimes.
The big issue with DnD power balancing is not the power, but the culture it creates where players are incentivized to buy books by putting in powerful options for them in almost every book. The reason I say that this is bad is because no DM is realistically going to tell someone they can’t use a 70-90 dollar book they just bought because it’s unbalanced, and most casual tables don’t have the ability to do so. The other issue is the ‘players vs DM’ mentality that the online community has made as retribution for older editions. Players are encouraged by the books to always take the best option, especially in 5e where from what I remember, there were hardly any pre requisites to classes, races, feats or backgrounds, meaning a player could ALWAYS start with the most optimized possible build and then make a backstory based on that rather than making a backstory and assembling the character around it. This might not sound like an issue, especially for those who DM for parties without power gamers, but I had one player who would use those builds time and time again because he wanted to ‘win’ DnD. We had to push him out of the group over this because of that and a myriad of other reasons, but generally speaking, players like that are given boons by the system which require harder encounter balancing which hampers the non power gamers who are, in turn forced to become power gamers. I play TTRPGS to first and foremost tell a story with my players, however the design of DnD often renders the dungeon master as an enabler for parties to engage in power fantasy. If you’ve played white box, Basic, advanced and second edition, you’ll come to find that the game was based around players engaging with the world, grinding for EXP was dangerous, so as a result it became easier to cooperate with the game master than constantly antagonize and push back against them. Compare this to 5e, even if the players don’t have magic items, they are still wildly more powerful than most human enemies, and past fifth level parties can essentially do whatever they want. This is not to say the GM can’t do anything about it, but it gets to a point where he is making encounters with monsters who somehow know every counter to every players move and have ridiculous abilities, which is no fun for anyone. The issue with current DnD, and I have said it time and time again is that it has stopped being about the player and the DM working together, and, as the endless player power growth demonstrates, instead becomes a game about facilitating the power fantasies of the players over the story ambitions of the DM in a very one sided way. I should also mention that I haven’t played 5E in years since moving to Cyberpunk 2020, homebrew systems and white box DnD. My experience is that, especially in cyberpunk, players are FAR more powerful than any in DnD 5e, but the DM also receives a great deal of support from the system with ways to ensure that things don’t get too out of hand. My honest advice is that if you’re even a little dissatisfied with 5E or the new edition, jump ship and try something like Mork Borg, Pathfinder, cyberpunk, classic DnD or even your own homebrew system.
1.) Multi-classing is the devil. It is the main source of most over powered builds. 2.) Having the Prof. Bonus attached to a class ability, and thus allowing it to increase without that class leveling up, is a mistake. I'd recommend any increase in a class's power be tied to the level of that class. ----> I do believe the Prof. Bonus is best used to any race/species ability since there is no to multi-race/species or level up as a race/species... 3.) Feats are no longer optional, giving the players more choices at character creation at the cost of removing that option from the DM. 4.) I like how the background all come with a feat and skill bonuses. I don't like how those skill bonuses are restricted to certain abilities. Well done adding in the custom backgrounds so we can do what we want. 5.) The power level among classes in much better now. Meaning, all classes should have about the same power throughout all levels...
OMG - Level 1 Flight races, Old GloomStalker Ranger, Twilight and Peace Clerics, Chronurgy Wizard, Echo Knight Fighter... Next their would be things like the Moon Druid, Genie Warlock, The old Hexblades... I'm so happy to say no to these people now that we have the 2024 rules. They really need to do testing to make sure new stuff isn't just so outside of the power scope- and they need to correct SO MANY spells that they didn't do before.
I can't help but roll my eyes when the subject of power creep comes up. There was honestly a time when people said that the Battle Master was too strong for the game or how the Rage mechanic was too good. To be frank, players wanting and enjoying powerful options is neither a crime nor should be viewed as the "wrong" choice. Hell, it shouldn't be even viewed as the "right" choice because it's just a choice. As a DM I've more often seen players come up with far more interesting characters when their options were strong enough to match their vision, but I've also seen optimizers push what would be considered weaker options to the limit with good builds. Powerful options existing is not the problem, they simply exist and no one is forced to pick them.
I understand what you’re saying and I’m largely in agreement with you but it sounds like you are missing one, albeit fairly nuanced, point. My approach to the discussion here is that power creep is about much more than individual choice, it’s about the game environment as a whole. Regardless of whether or not anyone picks the “stronger” options, there are system wide ramifications. New monsters need to be created to accommodate for those powers, encounter design shifts, adventure and campaign structures may change because of more things that can happen. And this is just if no one picks the new things. But then consider a scenario where one player takes the new overpowered hotness. That has the potential to invalidate other player’s choices, it puts pressure on the DM the ensure that they can appropriate challenge the “stronger” character while not just killing the weaker ones”. It’s so much bigger than “well just don’t choose it” because there are system wide ramifications regardless.
@@InsightCheckI agree. The issue with power creep is when you’re at a mixed table of min maxers and narrative players. The encounter design for narrative players will be too weak for min maxers and the spotlight will be on the overpowered player(s) one shotting the BBEG, but if you tune to the min maxers then the narrative low int wizard that failed out of wizard college can’t do anything and again left out of the spotlight.
@@InsightCheck Perfect. It's terrible when a DM has to rebalance everything because of that one guy. It takes months sometimes just so the other PC can feel like their participating again. This tears groups appart
I've been in a level 1 to 16 now campaign with a Twilight Cleric. He's only done the flying + temp hit points thing if we're in a really tough fight, and it's been the only thing that has kept us alive a few times. Even so, we've still nearly TPK'd three times and had retreat. We've been playing in the Kobold Press Midgard setting, and the bosses are devastating. I think the tougher enemies and our Twilight cleric being a responsible player who doesn't want to tilt. the game, has really combined to make him an MVP but in a great way, not a bad way. It doesn't feel like he overshadows anyone, more that he just saves us when he needs to, but can still only do so much.
@@InsightCheck Yeah it makes a big difference I think. Some of us are optimizers, but we're also conscious players. I feel like things like the Twilight Cleric are really great if you have a table that respects the overall gameplay. our cleric does different things in different fights to mix it up for himself, and not just do the same strong thing every time. luckily the game has enough spells and toys that there's an intellectual motivation to do that because you can't do everything every time, and you only get so many battles to play in. however, I think relying on that as a reason for saying that power creep is okay, also has its problems. but.... I think it also can be a little bit distorted to assume that just because something is our powered that it's going to be abused every time. certain players will, but a lot of players either won't understand it or won't abuse it because they choose not to. WOTC can't perfectly control that, they can only respond to large-scale patterns that show over time (like multi-class dips). So they have a challenge to make the game as balanced as they can for the general populace, and hope that the min maxing people don't abuse it.
I don't think the new Cleric things are all bad. on our online maps they aren't ever that large or have that far of a line of site that the 300' isn't really useful. and a d4 IF they stay within 30' of each other makes AOEs on the party so much easier for the enemies. I don't like staying up close to others for that reason, since I feel like I'm begging for a fireball, cone of cold or some form of breath weapon to hit me. I also had no problem with the subclasses being at different levels. It makes the 1 level dip into some of them seem more worth it, but we(or me? lol) only do it if it fits Char. storywise. I've been in 3 long campaign in the 2014 version and so far only mc'ed in the game we went to 20 on, since I didn't and reason that my fighter wouldn't "go rogue" since their entire family and clan were thieves. In my current campaign my Bard is obsessed with becoming strong enough to save his girlfriend who has been kidnapped during this story. He's looking for Any way to be a hitter in every capacity, and is frustrated he has no long ranged cantrips. He's gonna make a deal next level to get eldritch blast, but wants to remain a bard, so it will just be a 1 level dip. I originally had no interest in MC'ing but our story has made him an angry bard who wants power at whatever the cost to save his love.
I think the 300 darkvision is funny, but the bigger issue I think is the refreshable temporary hit points, the advantage on initiative is...weird to me. Not broken, but I think I'd prefer if Twilight focused more on the aspects of light and dark instead of putting a protector vibe into it as well (I get the theming, but I just don't like there being yet another martial weapon and heavy armor cleric)
I think the biggest issue is not having firm boundaries on what classes can and can't do. For example why is pass without trace a spell? It actively takes away from stealthy characters like rogues and rangers while also being on casters who already can do a lot. Same with spell components which should be more firm to make spellcasting less reliable since as written being bound doesn't stop stop you from using somatic components. I am firmly of the belief that being powerful is fine so long as it doesn't work all the time. Knock is a good spell but has a cost which is why most people don't pick it up. If all spells that stepped on the toes of martial were similarly punishing it would make the party as a whole much better.
Personally I think that's a good thing, as you don't want to get to a situation where you MUST have a character of class x in the group because no other class can do y. And you need a free hand to do somatic components, if your hands are bound, you don't have that.
you dont want to force certain party make ups. characters arent always going to be useful in each situation. sometimes tahts just not possible without the DM artificially forcing it, which can cause its own issues.
@ If a caster like a druid is a better scout, thief, and combatant than a rogue then what is the point of a rogue? The issue with allowing so many powerful classes is that it makes the weaker ones just not worth using once level 5 hits. By the time a caster like a druid hits 7th level there is no reason to have anyone else this ruins the class fantasy of the thief player. Think of it this way. If a druid and a rogue are in the same party and need to break into a tower without encountering its guardians it is best to have the druid just cast pass without trace so the whole party can tag along. The rogue who put expertise into stealth now feels silly and robbed. Since they were hoping to shine in this moment after multiple sessions of the druid being a major player in combat, roleplay, and general utility.
The game designers could change pass without a trace to give a +4 to stealth and people would still use it a lot. That alone means that the +10 is exagerated and possibly problematic
Partially agree with the points from this video. The optional rules from 2014 are optional because there was no guarantee that the game would respond well to those. Most people forget that multiclassing, feats and magic items were all optional. 2014 had problems beyond that with several spells and classes that were not optional. I just think your video should differentiate between both cases because you say a lot about problems in the game design but often points to optional items and not the real ones
5:05 this makes me wish the 2024 editions specifically stayed that it COULD be proficiency bonus, but only if you’re Single Classed. I see a lot of stuff about multiclassing but honestly the most flavorful stuff, at least for me, is a full dive into a specific subclass with a focus on a specific subset of that subclass. Let multiclassers have fun, but don’t detract from what us single classers have been used to using :(
I mean the power distribution in the new phb is pretty fair and while it's a higher average it's consistent and I think that going off the index creatures we will see a monster manual to match it. I'm cautious but hopeful about the future of balance.
Also why power creep, while it does exist in pf2e, doesn't invalidate any options in pf2e. I'd say a good example is the kineticist dedication compared to a spellcaster dedication. Kineticist dedication is better in most situations, but because the numbers keep going up you can still get some great use out of a spellcaster dedication
A lot of the issues with the twilight and peace cleric is that they buffed the subclasses between the playtest and final release. (Besides the unlimited darkvision for twilight cleric) the playtest versions were actually a bit more balanced
You could say that power creep is the opposite of option creep, and you want a balance. I have high hopes for 2024 PHB and DMG. It's the first DnD things I've bought so I want them to be good
I’m almost in total agreement with your views for once😮! I’m very impressed with the new 2024 version of the rules so far and the few games I have run using them don’t feel like the players have significantly increased in power, even though the rules would suggest otherwise. It’s probably us still getting the hang of the changes and only allowing 2024 rules. I know they said it would be backwards compatible but my group is effectively treating it as a new edition.
lol what a time to be alive! But for real, I’m glad we’re in alignment haha There’s a lot of new fun things happening and my group is also largely embracing it as a “new edition” and sticking with 2024 only stuff and it’s been a lot of fun!
Some of the previews of the 2024 monsters look to be pretty tough and much more of a threat to PCs when compared to the relatively the weak 2014 monsters. Hopefully is the case when the 2024 monster manual comes out. Also we can hope third party publishers can take the creative commons license and make some additional monster material similar to the 5e compatible "Flee Mortals".
Yeah and that’s kind of my point here too. So much as been said about how much the average power level has increased with 2024, but the new monsters are looking significantly stronger either. It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out.
Tasha’s clerics not only broke the optimizer mindset, but they both got buffed from their UA versions before being released in TCoE. Pure bad power creep in the worst way. As a DM, you’re put in a lose-lose vice. I had to really upscale combats to make anything remotely challenging because of a twilight cleric. My cleric player felt justified because without his temp hp machine they would have tpk’d multiple times over. Not realizing that the planned hard encounters had everything to do with the temp hp was the disconnect between us. Thankfully that’s over.
Personally I do not associate "power creep" with a positive change. "Power creep" is always a negative attribute to the game in question. Making something "playable" (ex. Tasha's Ranger) is a "buff" (or similar articulation) and reduces the chances of confusion when talking about mechanical changes. Finally the disparity in 5.24 between the classes feels worse. I know there is a difference between "feels" and 'Is" so I will allow more time to elapse before coming to a final decision yet I think the DMG really brings home how unbalanced 5.24 is for martial classes. Until the release of the official MM this will remain a "feeling" yet I just don't feel good for any martial (non-caster sub-classes) at this juncture.
May have been strong but people were not playing them. There is/was no reason to play a healer (i.e. Cleric) in 5.14 and Tasha's made playing a cleric more enticing. Even after Tasha's I didn't see/hear about an influx of clerics showing up to game nights. I did hear about more Sorcerers, Druids, and Rogues showing up.
power creep has been the main way they have had an excuse for launching a new edition, and it ever will be. but this time they appear to have started from badly balanced features... so maybe they are trying a benjamin button method... and will relaunch after it gets balance.
I think most editions have been substantially different enough that power wasn’t really the main attraction. For supplements and new books within an edition though? Absolutely. Incidentally, while I think the average power level has increased with 2024, I think the bulk of the “most powerful” options might still reside in 2014 and could continue to be an issue because of the fixation on backward compatibility.
I don't like the idea of calling anything that makes anything stronger powercreep. Powercreep, at least the way I see it, is a specific term referring to a specific phenomenon. Something that was worthless before being made somewhat less worthless or even worthwhile isn't power creep, it's just balancing. Powercreep, at least for me, is when you continually push stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger options that are clearly unbalanced, and you don't rebalance, but instead just compensate by introducing more absurdity into your game. Powercreep has the connotation of making things obsolete. Old ranger didn't get powercrept by TCE ranger. It got made so that people actually wanted to pick it and not feel useless if they happened to happen into the wrong terrain (or, like, in general). Ranger power creep isn't TCE. Ranger power creep is Gloomstalker, since, if you're gonna play a ranger and you wanna achieve something without the DM giving you constant handouts, you either play gloomstalker or don't play ranger at all. Old ranger didn't get made obsolete by TCE features. It was already basically obsolete.
I disagree with your argument on making things modifier rather than proficiency bonus. Because you don’t optimize you probably don’t build many characters. A good example is any ranger other then hunter cannot go strength because they are forced into high wisdom and that turns them maad and kills creativity of builds
I’m not sure I understand the context here? Are you referring to features that scale with PB? We’ve pretty much entirely seen the design team move away from things scaling with PB because it became problematic for multiclassing. They’ve spoken about it multiple times in the past.
The power creep of 2024 dnd doesn't bother me. It's the added complexity and bad design (even though they had 10+ years to tweak things) that's dissapointing. Martials might be stronger than before, but Weapon Masteries add more complexity to classes that are supposed to be simple, and pigeonhole characters into using the same weapons. The Ranger is "stronger" but it doesn't get a unique feature (other than free castings of Hunter’s Mark) until like 9th level Paladins might be "stronger", but they messed with smites, and no one wanted Divine Smite to be more clunky to use. Also now all Paladins are necessarily horse riders, because they get a feature giving them Find Steed, whether they want it or not
I really don't get the complaints about Peace Domain honestly, seems perfectly in line with other cleric subclasses to me and even a bit boring if I'm honest. now Twilight, Twilight goes crazy, the twilight shroud is bonkers.
I'm 8 sessions deep into a 2024 campaign for 6 players, using Flee Mortals monsters from MCDM. They're only 3rd level and completey dominating encounters. Each player has mobility, healing, damage reduction, high AC and ways to just impose disadvantage and prone without asking for monsters to save. Its wildly in the player's favor, even more so now.
So a big part of that is the fact that power has absolutely increased with 2024 player options. The thing is though, that nothing players are competing against (namely monsters) have not yet been updated. Even Flee, Mortals which has stronger overall designs, still falls largely into the same relative power camp as 2014 era monsters. I’ve made a few videos about new monsters and I think it looks like enemy power is also about to increase in a big way. This is a huge part of why I was so confused about the new MM coming out SO much later than the new PHB.
Big party. My most important suggestion would be to attack them on different fronts each time. Creatures with burrowing or flying speed or different groups of enemies should do the trick.
@andreacallegari7137 totally. Using different tactics in battle, not with the intent to kill your party, but to challenge them is certainly a big part of this too!
Some options being more powerful than others is fine as long as the more powerful options don’t do everything the less powerful options do. For instance despite the new monk still being weaker than a wizard, a party would be better off with one wizard and one monk than with two wizards since the monk can accomplish things that no other class can
" I dont care about being optimized I just make memorable moments! " **2 minutes later** " I'm upset that my bardic inspiration isnt optimal in the face of the peace cleric alternative! " Sorry, this just felt counterintuitive to me? I feel like so many dnd players love to claim they don't care about being strong, meanwhile they most certainly do -- and are in fact upset when they don't get to be strong in the fields they want to be strong in. I think it's okay to want to be strong, because it makes your character important. Strength is what *creates* those memorable moments, because it means your character has significance to the survival of their party. The reason things "feels bad" as you say in the video is specifically because they aren't optimized. Sure, a person might not focus on optimizing a build, but they are certainly affected by the *game's* optimization of their mechanics.
And yet wizards are still the weakest class once again with no class features. And anyone who brings up the spell list just know that they don't automatically get those spells for free they have to spend in game time and money to get spell scroll into their spellbook. Wizards are the only class that doesn't have class features and I'm sick of everyone saying that their overpowered.
I do have to agree with you, they're identifying the wrong problem. Wizards aren't overpowered, a massive amount of spells that exist are overpowered, and they're simply the best at casting spells
@@lockskelington314you know you learn a good amount of spells through levels? Enough to make your wizard a war machine and without spending any gold, also in my campaigns finding new spells wasn't that much of an issue and you get the most important and broken spells through leveling up anyways, copying new ones is simply cherry on top
I wish they kept the 3 spell list . The unified progression . And mad all feats without a stat booat but made the asi at 4th 8th 12th 16th 19th all five +1 regardless . When making all feats give +1 to some atts it restrect builds and make the asi+2 much weaker. Like my druid won't be able to enjoy sentinal as much
Since you’ve not had power gamers you don’t know the pain of every game basically being the same game. Every game has all the elves taking Elven Accuracy, everyone barsd taking Silvery Barbs, every cleric is a Twilight Cleric. And all of them play an optimized build from D&D Deep Dive Dive. When you have this group of optimizers the DM needs to do a lot of work to have a balanced fun game.
I’m not quite sure how this applies here? I mean mainly because I never said that I’ve never played with these kinds of players, just that my current group are not :P. But I’m also just not sure how it’s related to the discussion. I fully acknowledge the problem with power creep in the past, I’m not diminishing it or saying it didn’t exist or anything. In fact, I’m doing the opposite, but looking at some of the ways that the design team is seemingly trying to stem the tide a bit.
@@InsightCheck Fair enough. I'm largely moving to 2024 to reset all the bad creep that currently exists in 2014. The new feats seem to restore more options and shore up some pretty weak feats. Unlike something like Pathfinder, which tags different power creep as Uncommon and Rare, there isn't a good way to decipher what is "stronger" overall without first experience it at the table. In Pathfinder, Twilight and Peace Domains would be tagged as Uncommon but the replacement Ranger would be Common, which means you need DM approval before taking Uncommon. Where as in D&D everything is available unless your DM takes it away from you. That's a big difference. In scenario one, the DM not allowing an Uncommon is typical while in scenario two the DM is the bad guy for taking away your fun. In 2024 now, Multiclassing isn't an optional rule (at least not that I've read) so if the DM doesn't want Multiclassing then they are taking away from the players. The game should categorize what is "shoring up weakness" vs "straight up more power."
lol - power creep is the only thing DnD knows how to do. They have nothing else because it's designed from the ground up as a medieval superheroes miniatures wargame.
I still have strong feelings about the subclasses changes cause now I have the paladin problem and jokes and my ground just straight up will never do lvl 1 starting campaign's now especially since were heavy role-players and a few me included are warlock players and a dm who cares about character creation and uses their background stories pretty well
- except for the Ranger (and a bit for Paladins and Rogue to clean them up) ((By the way this is not new. One of the things 4th edition did was balance perfectly as possible the classes - Pahfinder grew huge partly as a result. And removal of the PB elements made some issues for Paladin and Ranger characters (a bit to the others). It was bad move they should have modified it in the multiclass rules.))
That’s not the point. I addressed multiple times in the video that average power level has increased with 2024. The point I was making was whether this can be used as a soft reset to stem the tide of future power creep. Ironically, I even used the increased power level as part of my support for that claim. It doesn’t sound like you watched the whole video.
@@InsightCheck Oh, I didn't. I'm an annoying person and commented as it started to play. In my defense, you titled your video with a question, which invites a pre-watch response. In any event, I'd *still* argue that my point is valid, because you can't stem a tide of something by doing the thing. They've made a new edition out of 20% milquetoast errata and 80% player appeasement. It's power creep all the way down. The disease isn't necessarily getting better just because the fever is higher. Anyway, sorry for being annoying. I enjoy your videos.
Yeah I totally agree with this. I would have loved to see a few more as well. I’m sure we will continue to get more so they can sell more books though haha
Given all the monsters we have seen from the new MM its kinda weird. Some are stronger, but others are weaker. I really don't know what the design team is thinking xd.
I think we’ll need to wait for the release of the MM to see the full picture. In general, it looks like the monsters are looking much stronger though. But yeah, we’ll need to wait and see.
It seems like there has been a concerted effort to weaken CR >2 creatures, and buff creatures over that threshold. Honestly seems like a good idea. If low level creatures take very few actions to clean up, it might justify removing the action economy modifier in the encounter balancing math.
This is my main concern with the new addition. Like there are actually a lot of needed and interesting changes. I just feel that it's so all over the place and inconsistent that I don't understand the design teams goals and it makes me hesitant to invest in learning and playing it.
calling tasha's ranger powercreep is stretching the definition so thin I can see through it, that was a rework made to fix ranger cause the old one sucked so bad.
Excellent points, though my visceral hatred for Weapon Masteries remains unabated. Jokes(?) aside, do you think there's a meaningful difference between min-maxers and optimizers? Personally, I think so.
2024 actually fixed the 'powerful' cleric subclasses. you now have to invest 3 levels to get them. At that level, their not overpowered and are far more in line.
Disagree with the race argument for disconnecting the ASIs. That just makes it so that all the races seem the same instead of their cultures being shaped by their strengths and weaknesses. The tool thing is weird to me because if a DM didn't allow players to use tools for their purpose that was making them useless. Why did we need WotC (who has such a stellar record of getting things correct /sarcasm) to "allow" anything.
Don't need to watch, answer is yes. This is their MO, if you don't get it by now, sorry. Flatten, release splat books until it breaks, flatten again. You won't get a pristine tabletop game out of Wizards, just a continual race to the bottom until the game numbers don't make sense any more.
power creep is not really a issue in dnd... i mean lets say a cleric can heal a player to max health 20 times pr long rest... well the DM just needs to deplete those 20 times pr long rest... a player has a fly ability... have encounters indoors with low cieling... a player can do 5000 necrotic dmg pr turn... giver monsters immunity to necrotic dmg... its basicly just a question of the dm useing the tools he has available...
The limiting factors that DnD tries to impose on its players is one of its fundamental problems. They never get it all right so there are glaring holes.
@, I’ll try. When you build for x, you leave out x + y, 2x, etc. The system doesn’t seem to account for multiclassing and as such it is easy to ‘break the game.’ If maximizing and power gaming were accounted for, or just more play styles, I think we’d have a more balanced game. When a Barbadian runs out of rages they aren’t going to be as effective as intended. Or, did they average a barbarian based on running out of rages. Either way, you will miss. Don’t limit the barbarian and you can account for its damage always.
moving subclasses to 3rd level was brilliant to stop all the ridiculous multiclass combos... i had outlawed multiclassing at my table because of that in the 2014 rules... BUT it does remove a huge amount of flavor from early level class design that I don't feel like they made up for
The reasons Twilight clerics are bad as player characters are the exact same reason why they are a great DMNPC/party supporter controlled by the DM when playing with new players. Now if all your players want to play 1st-level spellcasters, have limited or no helaing, no darkvision, no tank and no one to take care of Strength/Wisdom checks, the Twilight cleric becomes an option.
The term power creep has a negative connotation. If there is some increase in power that doesn't introduce major issues it isn't power creep by definition. There is no such thing as 'good power creep'. Don't redefine terms that everyone already understands. Awful video premise, have a dislike and I am not watching past 1:42
In the 2024 rules all people have a feat. Every single NPC has an origin feat. Every character has a background, but not every character has a class. This rule change fundamentally alters the dynamic of cities, towns and all interactions. This also means the DM must assign origin feats to all NPCs, even child NPCs. In 2014 this wasn't a concern. I haven't heard any DnDtuber address this flaw as of yet.
Most NPCs are not “adventurers”. They do not need feats, they operate very different than player characters do as a result of both logic and asymmetric design. Even the “Commoner” stat block from 2014 just has an ability score of 10 in everything. NPCs do not follow the same “rules” as player characters do in 5e. No one has addressed it because there’s nothing to address. On the flip side, if you now wanted to create a much more in depth and powerful NPC, you now have more tools at your disposal.
Every single change in 2024 has reduced the incentive for creativity. I don't know how you can look at homogeneity and think it looks diverse. Your brain must be broken. I'm not trying to be insulting with that comment, just pointing out something that is painfully clear to me as a creative writer.
Oh yes, as a creative thinker I agree. Weapon masteries completely limit your characters creativity. You used to NOT be able to push or topple people and it was all in your head. Now it's in the rules that you can do this cool stuff and it makes characters so bland.
@DndUnoptimized no no no, that can’t possibly be it. I think your brain must be broken too. I don’t mean that to be insulting though, I just thought I would insult you without being insulting.
I would argue the likes of Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul are good power creep. Yes, they made pretty much every other Sorcerer subclass in the game irrelevant, but they did what Sorcerer players had been begging for for ages: Additional spells known. The biggest problem with Sorcerer was its lack of spells known. Only 15 in total hurt them a lot and made it harder for them to compete with other full casters. Both subclasses getting 10 additional spells known opened up so many new options for Sorcerer players. You no longer had to just pick the most powerful/optimal spells. You had extra spells that added a ton of flavor and utility to your game. It was amazing! Obviously picking from Wizard and Warlock spells was huge power creep and they got rid of that in 2024, but still. The fact that they gave Draconic Sorcerer spells shows that they learned their lesson from the power creep. Bringing an older subclass up to standard with the newer subclasses.
I mostly agree, I feel like being able to choose spells from multiple other classes was a bit too far for it. Personally, after they came out all the groups I play in gave similar extra spells known to other subclasses to make up for difference between the subclasses.
I also like the 2024 change where all casters can ritual cast now, before I would sometimes take ritual caster on my sorcerers
Issue is that it made all the others irreverent. If you are Clockwork and I am a Draconic at the same table there will be some bad feelings about our choices!
@@leodouskyron5671 Which is why Draconic got updated in the new rules. Hopefully the old subclasses get updated too.
Im called an optimizer for maxing my wisdom and playing a nature cleric and knowing how spirt guardians and sanctuary interact. I also when shoping for magic items asked specifically for less powerful items than were provided to me. Theres a level to this that a DM can curb like dont give the cleric plus 2 plate armor and a plus 2 shield and ring and cloak of protection. i wanted NONE of these items and told him what would happen. He still hasnt realized theres still a glaring weakness on my certain saves like intelligence
I think a lot of DMs end just like giving their players “good” magic items. It feels fun to do and rewarding. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with someone just knowing how interactions work and maxing their primary stat lol
I mean, Int saves aren't exactly common, so unless your GM creates a lot of custom creatures, or you frequently come up against psionic creatures, low Int saves aren't much of a weakness.
Clerics are just really strong generally. They naturally have strong AC due to their proficiencies. Their main stat is one of the two most common saves. Their spell list is great early game and solid later. As a GM of a cleric myself, I can relate to the feeling, that the cleric is kinda op.
At the same time, GMs can sometimes 'call you out' for the strangest of reasons. One time when playing a wizard, I and my sorcerer buddy were called cowards ooc by the GM, because we were taking cover behind a wall insted of just standing in the open and letting ourselves get shot at by the other side.
How do spirit guardians and sanctuary interact?
Dude, you're not optimizer for knowing how Spirit Guardian and Sanctuary interact. You're a PROBLEM PLAYER if you're using it while knowing full well that you found a loop hole in the game design.
And maybe you don't have a lot of experience as a DM if you think it's that easy to find Monsters options that call for INT saves.
Spirit Guardians ends sanctuary, thats how they interact.
There was a period in the 2014 rules where that wasn’t the case, but that was changed by errata years ago.
2024 rules did not make the same mistake.
I mean... I'd love to see a power creep on the ranger in tier 4... lol.
@@JJV7243 out of any class, they need all the help lol.
Hunters need more love.
Gloom Stalkers need a little more too.
The nerfed stalkers a little too much.
Rangers still need a little more identity with "Hunter's Mark" in particular.
Otherwise, I'm totally cool with 2024.
I'm sure there will be erratas on certain spells coming soon. So.
@@rodneygriffin7666 for sure.
@@rodneygriffin7666 Id personally prefer hunters mark to not be such a class defining feature and replace the 13/17/20th level abilities with other things. That being said - it would have been cool if the hutner subclass was the "hunters mark" ranger and buffed that aspect a ton.
Powercreep is bound to happen. I'm glad they revamped older subclasses.
My favorite is curbing single level dips with all subclasses pushed to 3rd level. Respects the class before the subclass & this, roleplay. Sorcerers are starting to understand their unknown origin. Warlocks making small deals with an entity unknown to them. Clerics devotion is to be tested, resolved with a diety. Wizards & Druids just needed one more level to cook. And more importantly, all but one are full casters.
But the best of all, you can now make a lv20 character with no subclass to their name.
it's ok as long as the bad guys get stronger too
@whitleypedia Absolutely. That's generally the case with powercreeping. Stronger foes & challenges.
@@xiongray it’s a really, really good edition.
They've said that monsters are getting much tougher in 2024. What I'm seriously hoping for are... way more hit points, combat strategies/goals/personality for every stat block, more weaknesses to allow player choices to shine, less "bite and two claw" multiattacks, less anti-melee features, and more anti-ranged and anti-spellcaster features. Martials have the single-target damage and support that they needed to keep up. Now they need to just NOT ruin that by making all the enemies tougher to kill and hit in melee harder while being extra dangerous to be in melee against and having little to no ranged combat options. Otherwise, we'll just swing right back to casters being the only optimal choice again.
There were some 2014 class and subclass features that were so niche as to be wasted levels. I'm okay with power creeping those to something you can use sometimes.
The big issue with DnD power balancing is not the power, but the culture it creates where players are incentivized to buy books by putting in powerful options for them in almost every book. The reason I say that this is bad is because no DM is realistically going to tell someone they can’t use a 70-90 dollar book they just bought because it’s unbalanced, and most casual tables don’t have the ability to do so.
The other issue is the ‘players vs DM’ mentality that the online community has made as retribution for older editions. Players are encouraged by the books to always take the best option, especially in 5e where from what I remember, there were hardly any pre requisites to classes, races, feats or backgrounds, meaning a player could ALWAYS start with the most optimized possible build and then make a backstory based on that rather than making a backstory and assembling the character around it.
This might not sound like an issue, especially for those who DM for parties without power gamers, but I had one player who would use those builds time and time again because he wanted to ‘win’ DnD. We had to push him out of the group over this because of that and a myriad of other reasons, but generally speaking, players like that are given boons by the system which require harder encounter balancing which hampers the non power gamers who are, in turn forced to become power gamers.
I play TTRPGS to first and foremost tell a story with my players, however the design of DnD often renders the dungeon master as an enabler for parties to engage in power fantasy. If you’ve played white box, Basic, advanced and second edition, you’ll come to find that the game was based around players engaging with the world, grinding for EXP was dangerous, so as a result it became easier to cooperate with the game master than constantly antagonize and push back against them. Compare this to 5e, even if the players don’t have magic items, they are still wildly more powerful than most human enemies, and past fifth level parties can essentially do whatever they want.
This is not to say the GM can’t do anything about it, but it gets to a point where he is making encounters with monsters who somehow know every counter to every players move and have ridiculous abilities, which is no fun for anyone.
The issue with current DnD, and I have said it time and time again is that it has stopped being about the player and the DM working together, and, as the endless player power growth demonstrates, instead becomes a game about facilitating the power fantasies of the players over the story ambitions of the DM in a very one sided way.
I should also mention that I haven’t played 5E in years since moving to Cyberpunk 2020, homebrew systems and white box DnD. My experience is that, especially in cyberpunk, players are FAR more powerful than any in DnD 5e, but the DM also receives a great deal of support from the system with ways to ensure that things don’t get too out of hand.
My honest advice is that if you’re even a little dissatisfied with 5E or the new edition, jump ship and try something like Mork Borg, Pathfinder, cyberpunk, classic DnD or even your own homebrew system.
1.) Multi-classing is the devil. It is the main source of most over powered builds.
2.) Having the Prof. Bonus attached to a class ability, and thus allowing it to increase without that class leveling up, is a mistake. I'd recommend any increase in a class's power be tied to the level of that class.
----> I do believe the Prof. Bonus is best used to any race/species ability since there is no to multi-race/species or level up as a race/species...
3.) Feats are no longer optional, giving the players more choices at character creation at the cost of removing that option from the DM.
4.) I like how the background all come with a feat and skill bonuses. I don't like how those skill bonuses are restricted to certain abilities. Well done adding in the custom backgrounds so we can do what we want.
5.) The power level among classes in much better now. Meaning, all classes should have about the same power throughout all levels...
OMG - Level 1 Flight races, Old GloomStalker Ranger, Twilight and Peace Clerics, Chronurgy Wizard, Echo Knight Fighter...
Next their would be things like the Moon Druid, Genie Warlock, The old Hexblades... I'm so happy to say no to these people now that we have the 2024 rules. They really need to do testing to make sure new stuff isn't just so outside of the power scope- and they need to correct SO MANY spells that they didn't do before.
I can't help but roll my eyes when the subject of power creep comes up. There was honestly a time when people said that the Battle Master was too strong for the game or how the Rage mechanic was too good.
To be frank, players wanting and enjoying powerful options is neither a crime nor should be viewed as the "wrong" choice. Hell, it shouldn't be even viewed as the "right" choice because it's just a choice. As a DM I've more often seen players come up with far more interesting characters when their options were strong enough to match their vision, but I've also seen optimizers push what would be considered weaker options to the limit with good builds. Powerful options existing is not the problem, they simply exist and no one is forced to pick them.
I understand what you’re saying and I’m largely in agreement with you but it sounds like you are missing one, albeit fairly nuanced, point.
My approach to the discussion here is that power creep is about much more than individual choice, it’s about the game environment as a whole.
Regardless of whether or not anyone picks the “stronger” options, there are system wide ramifications. New monsters need to be created to accommodate for those powers, encounter design shifts, adventure and campaign structures may change because of more things that can happen. And this is just if no one picks the new things.
But then consider a scenario where one player takes the new overpowered hotness. That has the potential to invalidate other player’s choices, it puts pressure on the DM the ensure that they can appropriate challenge the “stronger” character while not just killing the weaker ones”.
It’s so much bigger than “well just don’t choose it” because there are system wide ramifications regardless.
@@InsightCheckI agree. The issue with power creep is when you’re at a mixed table of min maxers and narrative players. The encounter design for narrative players will be too weak for min maxers and the spotlight will be on the overpowered player(s) one shotting the BBEG, but if you tune to the min maxers then the narrative low int wizard that failed out of wizard college can’t do anything and again left out of the spotlight.
@@InsightCheck Perfect. It's terrible when a DM has to rebalance everything because of that one guy. It takes months sometimes just so the other PC can feel like their participating again. This tears groups appart
I've been in a level 1 to 16 now campaign with a Twilight Cleric. He's only done the flying + temp hit points thing if we're in a really tough fight, and it's been the only thing that has kept us alive a few times. Even so, we've still nearly TPK'd three times and had retreat. We've been playing in the Kobold Press Midgard setting, and the bosses are devastating.
I think the tougher enemies and our Twilight cleric being a responsible player who doesn't want to tilt. the game, has really combined to make him an MVP but in a great way, not a bad way. It doesn't feel like he overshadows anyone, more that he just saves us when he needs to, but can still only do so much.
Sounds like you have a great player and group! It makes everything better :)
@@InsightCheck Yeah it makes a big difference I think. Some of us are optimizers, but we're also conscious players.
I feel like things like the Twilight Cleric are really great if you have a table that respects the overall gameplay. our cleric does different things in different fights to mix it up for himself, and not just do the same strong thing every time. luckily the game has enough spells and toys that there's an intellectual motivation to do that because you can't do everything every time, and you only get so many battles to play in.
however, I think relying on that as a reason for saying that power creep is okay, also has its problems. but.... I think it also can be a little bit distorted to assume that just because something is our powered that it's going to be abused every time. certain players will, but a lot of players either won't understand it or won't abuse it because they choose not to. WOTC can't perfectly control that, they can only respond to large-scale patterns that show over time (like multi-class dips). So they have a challenge to make the game as balanced as they can for the general populace, and hope that the min maxing people don't abuse it.
I don't think the new Cleric things are all bad. on our online maps they aren't ever that large or have that far of a line of site that the 300' isn't really useful. and a d4 IF they stay within 30' of each other makes AOEs on the party so much easier for the enemies. I don't like staying up close to others for that reason, since I feel like I'm begging for a fireball, cone of cold or some form of breath weapon to hit me. I also had no problem with the subclasses being at different levels. It makes the 1 level dip into some of them seem more worth it, but we(or me? lol) only do it if it fits Char. storywise. I've been in 3 long campaign in the 2014 version and so far only mc'ed in the game we went to 20 on, since I didn't and reason that my fighter wouldn't "go rogue" since their entire family and clan were thieves. In my current campaign my Bard is obsessed with becoming strong enough to save his girlfriend who has been kidnapped during this story. He's looking for Any way to be a hitter in every capacity, and is frustrated he has no long ranged cantrips. He's gonna make a deal next level to get eldritch blast, but wants to remain a bard, so it will just be a 1 level dip. I originally had no interest in MC'ing but our story has made him an angry bard who wants power at whatever the cost to save his love.
I think the 300 darkvision is funny, but the bigger issue I think is the refreshable temporary hit points, the advantage on initiative is...weird to me. Not broken, but I think I'd prefer if Twilight focused more on the aspects of light and dark instead of putting a protector vibe into it as well (I get the theming, but I just don't like there being yet another martial weapon and heavy armor cleric)
I think the biggest issue is not having firm boundaries on what classes can and can't do.
For example why is pass without trace a spell? It actively takes away from stealthy characters like rogues and rangers while also being on casters who already can do a lot.
Same with spell components which should be more firm to make spellcasting less reliable since as written being bound doesn't stop stop you from using somatic components.
I am firmly of the belief that being powerful is fine so long as it doesn't work all the time. Knock is a good spell but has a cost which is why most people don't pick it up. If all spells that stepped on the toes of martial were similarly punishing it would make the party as a whole much better.
Personally I think that's a good thing, as you don't want to get to a situation where you MUST have a character of class x in the group because no other class can do y. And you need a free hand to do somatic components, if your hands are bound, you don't have that.
you dont want to force certain party make ups. characters arent always going to be useful in each situation. sometimes tahts just not possible without the DM artificially forcing it, which can cause its own issues.
@ If a caster like a druid is a better scout, thief, and combatant than a rogue then what is the point of a rogue?
The issue with allowing so many powerful classes is that it makes the weaker ones just not worth using once level 5 hits. By the time a caster like a druid hits 7th level there is no reason to have anyone else this ruins the class fantasy of the thief player.
Think of it this way. If a druid and a rogue are in the same party and need to break into a tower without encountering its guardians it is best to have the druid just cast pass without trace so the whole party can tag along. The rogue who put expertise into stealth now feels silly and robbed. Since they were hoping to shine in this moment after multiple sessions of the druid being a major player in combat, roleplay, and general utility.
The game designers could change pass without a trace to give a +4 to stealth and people would still use it a lot. That alone means that the +10 is exagerated and possibly problematic
@ I am referring to somatic and verbal components. Currently it is basically impossible to not be able to use somatic components.
6:26
Fun fact!
Both of them were publicly playtested. People deemed them "too strong".
WoTC buffed them between the playtest and the release.
Partially agree with the points from this video. The optional rules from 2014 are optional because there was no guarantee that the game would respond well to those. Most people forget that multiclassing, feats and magic items were all optional. 2014 had problems beyond that with several spells and classes that were not optional. I just think your video should differentiate between both cases because you say a lot about problems in the game design but often points to optional items and not the real ones
5:05 this makes me wish the 2024 editions specifically stayed that it COULD be proficiency bonus, but only if you’re Single Classed. I see a lot of stuff about multiclassing but honestly the most flavorful stuff, at least for me, is a full dive into a specific subclass with a focus on a specific subset of that subclass. Let multiclassers have fun, but don’t detract from what us single classers have been used to using :(
I mean the power distribution in the new phb is pretty fair and while it's a higher average it's consistent and I think that going off the index creatures we will see a monster manual to match it.
I'm cautious but hopeful about the future of balance.
Power creep in 3.5 is not an issue. The numbers keep going up. The BOUNDED ACCURACY of 5e makes power creep a bigger issue.
Also why power creep, while it does exist in pf2e, doesn't invalidate any options in pf2e.
I'd say a good example is the kineticist dedication compared to a spellcaster dedication. Kineticist dedication is better in most situations, but because the numbers keep going up you can still get some great use out of a spellcaster dedication
A lot of the issues with the twilight and peace cleric is that they buffed the subclasses between the playtest and final release. (Besides the unlimited darkvision for twilight cleric) the playtest versions were actually a bit more balanced
You could say that power creep is the opposite of option creep, and you want a balance. I have high hopes for 2024 PHB and DMG. It's the first DnD things I've bought so I want them to be good
I’m almost in total agreement with your views for once😮! I’m very impressed with the new 2024 version of the rules so far and the few games I have run using them don’t feel like the players have significantly increased in power, even though the rules would suggest otherwise. It’s probably us still getting the hang of the changes and only allowing 2024 rules. I know they said it would be backwards compatible but my group is effectively treating it as a new edition.
lol what a time to be alive! But for real, I’m glad we’re in alignment haha
There’s a lot of new fun things happening and my group is also largely embracing it as a “new edition” and sticking with 2024 only stuff and it’s been a lot of fun!
Some of the previews of the 2024 monsters look to be pretty tough and much more of a threat to PCs when compared to the relatively the weak 2014 monsters. Hopefully is the case when the 2024 monster manual comes out. Also we can hope third party publishers can take the creative commons license and make some additional monster material similar to the 5e compatible "Flee Mortals".
I hope the 5.5 ranger gets power creep cos it’s so boring. We are sticking with the more fun blend of 5e and Tasha’s.
We are gonna need some power creep those monsters are massively buffed coming in the mm
Yeah and that’s kind of my point here too. So much as been said about how much the average power level has increased with 2024, but the new monsters are looking significantly stronger either. It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out.
Tasha’s clerics not only broke the optimizer mindset, but they both got buffed from their UA versions before being released in TCoE.
Pure bad power creep in the worst way.
As a DM, you’re put in a lose-lose vice. I had to really upscale combats to make anything remotely challenging because of a twilight cleric.
My cleric player felt justified because without his temp hp machine they would have tpk’d multiple times over.
Not realizing that the planned hard encounters had everything to do with the temp hp was the disconnect between us.
Thankfully that’s over.
not as long as DMs have the balls to say no and house-rule it to something reasonable.
Honestly the only actual problem with power creep is when it leads to one PC outshining others too often.
Anything else is easily compensated for.
Personally I do not associate "power creep" with a positive change. "Power creep" is always a negative attribute to the game in question. Making something "playable" (ex. Tasha's Ranger) is a "buff" (or similar articulation) and reduces the chances of confusion when talking about mechanical changes.
Finally the disparity in 5.24 between the classes feels worse. I know there is a difference between "feels" and 'Is" so I will allow more time to elapse before coming to a final decision yet I think the DMG really brings home how unbalanced 5.24 is for martial classes. Until the release of the official MM this will remain a "feeling" yet I just don't feel good for any martial (non-caster sub-classes) at this juncture.
Weird that Tasha's Cauldron introduced two OP Cleric subclasses. Cleric was already one of the strongest classes overall.
May have been strong but people were not playing them. There is/was no reason to play a healer (i.e. Cleric) in 5.14 and Tasha's made playing a cleric more enticing. Even after Tasha's I didn't see/hear about an influx of clerics showing up to game nights. I did hear about more Sorcerers, Druids, and Rogues showing up.
@@peterwhitcomb8315 That's interesting, thanks for the feedback.
You don't have to worry about power creep for a while, they've got so many old subclasses to repackage and resell first!
Ranger is going to be terrible until Bigby's Big-Ass Book power creeps them hard.
power creep has been the main way they have had an excuse for launching a new edition, and it ever will be. but this time they appear to have started from badly balanced features... so maybe they are trying a benjamin button method... and will relaunch after it gets balance.
I think most editions have been substantially different enough that power wasn’t really the main attraction. For supplements and new books within an edition though? Absolutely.
Incidentally, while I think the average power level has increased with 2024, I think the bulk of the “most powerful” options might still reside in 2014 and could continue to be an issue because of the fixation on backward compatibility.
Dawg what? 3.5 is much stronger than both 4e and 5e.
I don't like the idea of calling anything that makes anything stronger powercreep. Powercreep, at least the way I see it, is a specific term referring to a specific phenomenon. Something that was worthless before being made somewhat less worthless or even worthwhile isn't power creep, it's just balancing. Powercreep, at least for me, is when you continually push stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger options that are clearly unbalanced, and you don't rebalance, but instead just compensate by introducing more absurdity into your game. Powercreep has the connotation of making things obsolete. Old ranger didn't get powercrept by TCE ranger. It got made so that people actually wanted to pick it and not feel useless if they happened to happen into the wrong terrain (or, like, in general). Ranger power creep isn't TCE. Ranger power creep is Gloomstalker, since, if you're gonna play a ranger and you wanna achieve something without the DM giving you constant handouts, you either play gloomstalker or don't play ranger at all. Old ranger didn't get made obsolete by TCE features. It was already basically obsolete.
I disagree with your argument on making things modifier rather than proficiency bonus. Because you don’t optimize you probably don’t build many characters. A good example is any ranger other then hunter cannot go strength because they are forced into high wisdom and that turns them maad and kills creativity of builds
I’m not sure I understand the context here? Are you referring to features that scale with PB? We’ve pretty much entirely seen the design team move away from things scaling with PB because it became problematic for multiclassing. They’ve spoken about it multiple times in the past.
The power creep of 2024 dnd doesn't bother me. It's the added complexity and bad design (even though they had 10+ years to tweak things) that's dissapointing.
Martials might be stronger than before, but Weapon Masteries add more complexity to classes that are supposed to be simple, and pigeonhole characters into using the same weapons.
The Ranger is "stronger" but it doesn't get a unique feature (other than free castings of Hunter’s Mark) until like 9th level
Paladins might be "stronger", but they messed with smites, and no one wanted Divine Smite to be more clunky to use. Also now all Paladins are necessarily horse riders, because they get a feature giving them Find Steed, whether they want it or not
I really don't get the complaints about Peace Domain honestly, seems perfectly in line with other cleric subclasses to me and even a bit boring if I'm honest. now Twilight, Twilight goes crazy, the twilight shroud is bonkers.
I'm 8 sessions deep into a 2024 campaign for 6 players, using Flee Mortals monsters from MCDM. They're only 3rd level and completey dominating encounters. Each player has mobility, healing, damage reduction, high AC and ways to just impose disadvantage and prone without asking for monsters to save. Its wildly in the player's favor, even more so now.
So a big part of that is the fact that power has absolutely increased with 2024 player options. The thing is though, that nothing players are competing against (namely monsters) have not yet been updated. Even Flee, Mortals which has stronger overall designs, still falls largely into the same relative power camp as 2014 era monsters.
I’ve made a few videos about new monsters and I think it looks like enemy power is also about to increase in a big way.
This is a huge part of why I was so confused about the new MM coming out SO much later than the new PHB.
Big party. My most important suggestion would be to attack them on different fronts each time. Creatures with burrowing or flying speed or different groups of enemies should do the trick.
@andreacallegari7137 totally. Using different tactics in battle, not with the intent to kill your party, but to challenge them is certainly a big part of this too!
Some options being more powerful than others is fine as long as the more powerful options don’t do everything the less powerful options do. For instance despite the new monk still being weaker than a wizard, a party would be better off with one wizard and one monk than with two wizards since the monk can accomplish things that no other class can
" I dont care about being optimized I just make memorable moments! "
**2 minutes later**
" I'm upset that my bardic inspiration isnt optimal in the face of the peace cleric alternative! "
Sorry, this just felt counterintuitive to me? I feel like so many dnd players love to claim they don't care about being strong, meanwhile they most certainly do -- and are in fact upset when they don't get to be strong in the fields they want to be strong in. I think it's okay to want to be strong, because it makes your character important. Strength is what *creates* those memorable moments, because it means your character has significance to the survival of their party. The reason things "feels bad" as you say in the video is specifically because they aren't optimized. Sure, a person might not focus on optimizing a build, but they are certainly affected by the *game's* optimization of their mechanics.
lol what? You understand that it’s possible to express a general sentiment without necessarily feeling that thing right?
And yet wizards are still the weakest class once again with no class features. And anyone who brings up the spell list just know that they don't automatically get those spells for free they have to spend in game time and money to get spell scroll into their spellbook. Wizards are the only class that doesn't have class features and I'm sick of everyone saying that their overpowered.
I do have to agree with you, they're identifying the wrong problem. Wizards aren't overpowered, a massive amount of spells that exist are overpowered, and they're simply the best at casting spells
@@destinpatterson1644 Wizards are the only class that has to pay to use its class feature!
@@lockskelington314you know you learn a good amount of spells through levels? Enough to make your wizard a war machine and without spending any gold, also in my campaigns finding new spells wasn't that much of an issue and you get the most important and broken spells through leveling up anyways, copying new ones is simply cherry on top
@@Tom-bb3fm sorcerers get all the same spells and no one says their busted.
All I want is for Wizards to have class features and not MORE SUBCLASSES.
I wish they kept the 3 spell list . The unified progression . And mad all feats without a stat booat but made the asi at 4th 8th 12th 16th 19th all five +1 regardless . When making all feats give +1 to some atts it restrect builds and make the asi+2 much weaker. Like my druid won't be able to enjoy sentinal as much
Since you’ve not had power gamers you don’t know the pain of every game basically being the same game. Every game has all the elves taking Elven Accuracy, everyone barsd taking Silvery Barbs, every cleric is a Twilight Cleric. And all of them play an optimized build from D&D Deep Dive Dive. When you have this group of optimizers the DM needs to do a lot of work to have a balanced fun game.
I’m not quite sure how this applies here? I mean mainly because I never said that I’ve never played with these kinds of players, just that my current group are not :P. But I’m also just not sure how it’s related to the discussion. I fully acknowledge the problem with power creep in the past, I’m not diminishing it or saying it didn’t exist or anything. In fact, I’m doing the opposite, but looking at some of the ways that the design team is seemingly trying to stem the tide a bit.
@@InsightCheck Fair enough. I'm largely moving to 2024 to reset all the bad creep that currently exists in 2014. The new feats seem to restore more options and shore up some pretty weak feats. Unlike something like Pathfinder, which tags different power creep as Uncommon and Rare, there isn't a good way to decipher what is "stronger" overall without first experience it at the table. In Pathfinder, Twilight and Peace Domains would be tagged as Uncommon but the replacement Ranger would be Common, which means you need DM approval before taking Uncommon. Where as in D&D everything is available unless your DM takes it away from you. That's a big difference. In scenario one, the DM not allowing an Uncommon is typical while in scenario two the DM is the bad guy for taking away your fun. In 2024 now, Multiclassing isn't an optional rule (at least not that I've read) so if the DM doesn't want Multiclassing then they are taking away from the players. The game should categorize what is "shoring up weakness" vs "straight up more power."
lol - power creep is the only thing DnD knows how to do. They have nothing else because it's designed from the ground up as a medieval superheroes miniatures wargame.
I still have strong feelings about the subclasses changes cause now I have the paladin problem and jokes and my ground just straight up will never do lvl 1 starting campaign's now especially since were heavy role-players and a few me included are warlock players and a dm who cares about character creation and uses their background stories pretty well
- except for the Ranger (and a bit for Paladins and Rogue to clean them up)
((By the way this is not new. One of the things 4th edition did was balance perfectly as possible the classes - Pahfinder grew huge partly as a result.
And removal of the PB elements made some issues for Paladin and Ranger characters (a bit to the others). It was bad move they should have modified it in the multiclass rules.))
I don't understand the question because D&D 2024 *IS* power creep.
That’s not the point. I addressed multiple times in the video that average power level has increased with 2024. The point I was making was whether this can be used as a soft reset to stem the tide of future power creep. Ironically, I even used the increased power level as part of my support for that claim. It doesn’t sound like you watched the whole video.
@@InsightCheck Oh, I didn't. I'm an annoying person and commented as it started to play. In my defense, you titled your video with a question, which invites a pre-watch response. In any event, I'd *still* argue that my point is valid, because you can't stem a tide of something by doing the thing. They've made a new edition out of 20% milquetoast errata and 80% player appeasement. It's power creep all the way down. The disease isn't necessarily getting better just because the fever is higher.
Anyway, sorry for being annoying. I enjoy your videos.
have you seen the power of the new monsters? the 2024 classes might be underpowered.
The 2024 ruleset already has the power creep built in thanks to the backward compatibility. Its only going to get worse. Far worse.
I think they need like 5 more origin feats
Yeah I totally agree with this. I would have loved to see a few more as well. I’m sure we will continue to get more so they can sell more books though haha
Given all the monsters we have seen from the new MM its kinda weird. Some are stronger, but others are weaker. I really don't know what the design team is thinking xd.
I think we’ll need to wait for the release of the MM to see the full picture. In general, it looks like the monsters are looking much stronger though. But yeah, we’ll need to wait and see.
It seems like there has been a concerted effort to weaken CR >2 creatures, and buff creatures over that threshold. Honestly seems like a good idea. If low level creatures take very few actions to clean up, it might justify removing the action economy modifier in the encounter balancing math.
This is my main concern with the new addition. Like there are actually a lot of needed and interesting changes. I just feel that it's so all over the place and inconsistent that I don't understand the design teams goals and it makes me hesitant to invest in learning and playing it.
Of course it will. Power creep always destroys by forcing you to go with the new to stay competitive. There is no good power creep.
He don’t miss
calling tasha's ranger powercreep is stretching the definition so thin I can see through it, that was a rework made to fix ranger cause the old one sucked so bad.
Excellent points, though my visceral hatred for Weapon Masteries remains unabated.
Jokes(?) aside, do you think there's a meaningful difference between min-maxers and optimizers? Personally, I think so.
Nah, hasbro will do that for us
It’s fine.
We’re fine.
Everything’s fine.
~_~
2024 actually fixed the 'powerful' cleric subclasses.
you now have to invest 3 levels to get them.
At that level, their not overpowered and are far more in line.
Disagree with the race argument for disconnecting the ASIs. That just makes it so that all the races seem the same instead of their cultures being shaped by their strengths and weaknesses.
The tool thing is weird to me because if a DM didn't allow players to use tools for their purpose that was making them useless. Why did we need WotC (who has such a stellar record of getting things correct /sarcasm) to "allow" anything.
4th edition was egregious with its power creep. Way worse than any addition before or since.
Don't need to watch, answer is yes. This is their MO, if you don't get it by now, sorry. Flatten, release splat books until it breaks, flatten again. You won't get a pristine tabletop game out of Wizards, just a continual race to the bottom until the game numbers don't make sense any more.
power creep is not really a issue in dnd... i mean lets say a cleric can heal a player to max health 20 times pr long rest... well the DM just needs to deplete those 20 times pr long rest... a player has a fly ability... have encounters indoors with low cieling... a player can do 5000 necrotic dmg pr turn... giver monsters immunity to necrotic dmg... its basicly just a question of the dm useing the tools he has available...
Not everyone is interested in playing a video game without the computer to do the maths in the background.
The limiting factors that DnD tries to impose on its players is one of its fundamental problems. They never get it all right so there are glaring holes.
I’m curious what you mean by this, could you expand?
@, I’ll try.
When you build for x, you leave out x + y, 2x, etc. The system doesn’t seem to account for multiclassing and as such it is easy to ‘break the game.’ If maximizing and power gaming were accounted for, or just more play styles, I think we’d have a more balanced game.
When a Barbadian runs out of rages they aren’t going to be as effective as intended. Or, did they average a barbarian based on running out of rages. Either way, you will miss. Don’t limit the barbarian and you can account for its damage always.
Nah. Can't ruin what Wizards has already ruined ; 3
moving subclasses to 3rd level was brilliant to stop all the ridiculous multiclass combos... i had outlawed multiclassing at my table because of that in the 2014 rules... BUT it does remove a huge amount of flavor from early level class design that I don't feel like they made up for
5e itself is a form of power creep. A 5e character is way more powerful and likely to survive than a 2e character.
They’re fundamentally different games.
Also ya ranger is too weak it’s gonna need some power creep to catch up to the busted ass paladin. What they did to gloomstalker was a joke
Stop playing 5e, better systems exist
I like it just fine :)
It didn't ruin 2014 :x
1000%
The reasons Twilight clerics are bad as player characters are the exact same reason why they are a great DMNPC/party supporter controlled by the DM when playing with new players. Now if all your players want to play 1st-level spellcasters, have limited or no helaing, no darkvision, no tank and no one to take care of Strength/Wisdom checks, the Twilight cleric becomes an option.
The term power creep has a negative connotation. If there is some increase in power that doesn't introduce major issues it isn't power creep by definition. There is no such thing as 'good power creep'. Don't redefine terms that everyone already understands.
Awful video premise, have a dislike and I am not watching past 1:42
In the 2024 rules all people have a feat. Every single NPC has an origin feat. Every character has a background, but not every character has a class. This rule change fundamentally alters the dynamic of cities, towns and all interactions. This also means the DM must assign origin feats to all NPCs, even child NPCs. In 2014 this wasn't a concern. I haven't heard any DnDtuber address this flaw as of yet.
Most NPCs are not “adventurers”. They do not need feats, they operate very different than player characters do as a result of both logic and asymmetric design. Even the “Commoner” stat block from 2014 just has an ability score of 10 in everything. NPCs do not follow the same “rules” as player characters do in 5e. No one has addressed it because there’s nothing to address.
On the flip side, if you now wanted to create a much more in depth and powerful NPC, you now have more tools at your disposal.
WOTC will self sabotage and destroy the brand looong before power creep sets in.
Every single change in 2024 has reduced the incentive for creativity. I don't know how you can look at homogeneity and think it looks diverse. Your brain must be broken. I'm not trying to be insulting with that comment, just pointing out something that is painfully clear to me as a creative writer.
lol
Oh yes, as a creative thinker I agree. Weapon masteries completely limit your characters creativity. You used to NOT be able to push or topple people and it was all in your head. Now it's in the rules that you can do this cool stuff and it makes characters so bland.
@DndUnoptimized no no no, that can’t possibly be it. I think your brain must be broken too. I don’t mean that to be insulting though, I just thought I would insult you without being insulting.
@@InsightCheck I'm not trying to be insulting, but I appear to be succeeding. That is one of my powers as a creative writer!
Every class in 2024 is 1.5 times stronger than 2012 but no. No power creep here.
I think you missed the point of the video.