Power Creep that made D&D 5e BETTER 

OneDnD monks are more like a power sprint and I am 100% here for it

A bit of good power creep you missed is from Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft: The Undead Pact Warlock. It fixed all of the problems of Undying to such a massive extent that people often forget that Undying exists.

In the Dungeon Dudes' recent video about skill proficiencies, they talked about wishing the history skill was a bit more like Pathfinder's lore skills, so you could be proficient in different areas of history. I didn't realize Xanathar's had explicitly added this function for tools, where proficiency also gives you advantage in lore situations like investigation related to that tool! I learn something new in every treantmonk video.

Regarding the 3.5 power creep, one thing I always bring up regarding the martial/caster divide is that the gap in 5E is practically non-existent when you compare it to the gap in 3.5. The power disparity between casters and martials in 3.5 was so bad that near the end of 3.5's life Wizards released the Tome of Battle, a martial-themed sourcebook that introduced the Crusader, Warblade, and Swordsage. These new classes were basically replacements in all but name for the Paladin, Fighter, and Monk, respectively, and were incredibly more powerful than their original counterparts. And that drastic a step was pretty much necessary, because the original classes were that weak compared to classes like Wizard, Cleric, and Druid.

I really really like the Darkness Sorcerer, it has a really cool flavor and abilities. At my table we just used the new bonus sorcerer spells as a template and picked 2 spell schools for each old subclass and tell players they can pick the extra spells at the same levels off of those lists. Now my old sorcerer has a new lease on life.

One class that I think might still need some power creep/buffs beyond what is in the UA is probably the Rogue, and oddly I think it might need it more in terms of the rest of the game system rather than the class itself. Like most magic weapons, and "per hit" buffing effects benefit a mono-class Rogues build less than a build with 5+ levels in any of the other martial, or half-caster class. So it could be fun if the designers look into adding some magic weapons and effects that might offer a choice between a "per hit effect", and a "once per turn/round" effect, like if a Flame Tongue Sword offered a choice between "2d6 flame damage per hit", and "3d6 flame damage on the first hit this turn" (potentially with some additional benefits to the once per turn/round effect, either as part of the effect itself, or as a unique component to the Rogue class/subclasses).

I loved Tasha’s optional features for classes too. Those really helped the existing classes be more customizable and in some cases more powerful. Based on everything that has recently been released, I’m very excited for one dnd or whatever it ends up being called

Path of the Giant will make all Barbarians better. Letting thrown attacks use Reckless Attack and Rage bonus is so popular that it looks like it will make it into the base class in the updated PHB. Unfortunately, that will make the best feature of Path of the Giant redundant. Thus, the subclass is more like a bridge to smooth out pain points untill the updated PHB is released and we get four better subclass options (hopefully).

Personally, I've always considered "power creep" to be making the best things better. In that way, the power level of the game AS A WHOLE gets higher. So things like buffing the ranger, well those are just buffs, not creep. So Tasha's allowing you to switch ability scores, that IS power creep, because it adds another level to optimization. Just a thought.

I think booming blade and green flame blade were positive power creep.

Great video. Powercreep can be used to arrive to design goals and that's positive.

One thing to keep in mind about power creep in 3.5 is that some of the worst offenders to balance (in both directions, too strong & too weak) are in the PHB. Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger & Rogue are all Tier 4 with Monk being Tier 5. Meanwhile Cleric, Druid & Wizard are all Tier 1 with Sorcerer being high Tier 2. The only PHB class hitting the Tier 3 "sweet spot" is the Bard. Late lifetime releases tended to be much better about that (though there are of course exceptions here too), with all 3 ToB classes being Tier 3 for example.

That bit about astral monks has me wondering: What other good changes did the D&D community vote down for bad reasons?

I'm playing a ranger for the first time and he's a wisdom shillelagh focused fey wanderer with all the optional features from Tasha's, and he's a blast to play. I think ranger might be my new favorite class, everything just feels so good.

Psionic spells and clockwork spells were a godsend to the sorcerer! I added a spell list to the PHB sorcerer's as well

Your last video was all the obvious things people point to, but THIS video was gold because it really showed the great way 5e had inproved as it has matured.

Man I absolutely love the new logo/brand. Treantmonk has deserved something like that for a while. Thanks for all the amazing videos, content, and insight!

I've watched both videos now, and I don't really mind power creep in D&D. I care more about what seems cool, rather than what is actually good. My first character was a Draconic Sorcerer, and my Draconic Ancestor was a vital part of the story, which was really cool. My most recent character is an Alchemist Artificer, and I'm really excited to try out the different infusions and tinkering options, despite people telling me that that specific subclass is underpowered.

I think the current direction of DnD is to find horizontal power creep. This is, not doing “more”, but doing “new”. Opening different ways to problem solving and creative expression is the key for a diverse game that brings you to the table again and again. It reminds me to a barbarian subclass homebrew I made. My player basically wanted hulk, a scientist that had a horrible accident and woke something inside themselves. My solution? I made an Intelligence based barbarian: “The Path of the Awoken Mind”. I gave him expertise in one intelligence based skill, and he also could add his intelligence modifier to Athletic’s checks, and he would gain hover speed at high levels. I also gave him telekinetic rage attacks that would inflict no damage, but would move the enemies. One at level 3 that would move one medium (or less) target 10feet in any horizontal direction, and later (level 6?) one that moved all enemies 10 feet radially. It was amazing as a DM to see a barbarian solving combat with complex strategies of positioning, saving engaged allies, and evaluating at every turn if it was better to push an enemy or attack them. It was also awesome to see the barbarian engaging on investigations and research on the role play aspect. That one expertise gave the player a lot to do out of combat. Was it better at combat? Not really if we talk dpr. But it managed its goal: a barbarian with high intelligence (and feels intelligent mechanically ) that still feels true to the class, but makes something new and different.

So many subclasses were clearly designed with the idea that multiclassing was not being used. There are only a few subclasses that are genuinely OP if used singleclass.

An interesting example of what I think is probably unintentional power creep is the introduction of more Proficiency Bonus (PB) scaling on subclass features. It's clearly meant to disconnect specific attributes from subclasses, so that.players have greater freedom in building their characters (just like allowing variable attribute bonuses on races/species does). However, its also a massive boon to multi-classed characters.

I think you forgot one very important point, which is that people just like power creep. Especially for players who've played for years, power creep means a) new stuff to play around with and b) feels like a progression system on it's own, like raising the max level in WoW or whatever. For example finaslly being able to start with 18 in the primary attribute score without rolling for stats feels really good to me (even though it was one of your bad power creep examples). So I believe power creep is necessary for long term custoomer satisfaction and just straight up fun (and I believe a lot of poeple feel that way, even though they wouldn't articulate it).

One thing, or maybe it's a couplet (two things tied together) is a change in HOW new features are rolled out for One D&D. In previous editions a new race or subclass would be presented as universally available. In 5e, we see a mix of the old way, but also several setting unique cases like the MTG and Critical Roll additions. My hope for One D&D is that as new subclass and racial features are added, they're tied to specific settings. Obviously there will be homebrews that mash them all together, but this will limit the unintended combo power creep, and the options paralysis issues as well. It would also make the different settings books feel very different from each other, as the FOTM power build is probably different from one setting to another.

A playlist of the Sorcerer/Wizard videos would be appreciated.

The interesting thing about the tool uses in Xanathar's and character options is that the mountain dwarf can start with 7 tool proficiencies just from racial abilities plus background, class and subclass, can get 9 or 10 tool proficiencies at level 1 or level 3 with subclass. And can get weapon and armor proficiencies back with the right class or subclass.

> WotC, "Dragonborn have rusty coloured scales." Players no > WotC Fizban, "OK you win."

I think most people think “power creep” is when new classes or races or spells are more powerful than the existing ones. So that subsequent classes, races and spells have to match that higher power level to not be left behind. And when some of those subsequent options are more powerful, suddenly the next set of new options again have to be even stronger. In this way there is “power creep”. Remember “power creep” is a strongly pejorative phrase so whatever it describes must strongly negative for the game as a whole. Stuff like using tool proficiency to gain advantage is retroactively available to all player characters. Players get stronger but there is no “power creep” because there is no additional pressure on new options to be more powerful.

regarding power creep in hearthstone, the main mode people play is called standard, it uses cards released in the last 2 years and some amount of cards from previous years, so in this case shrinkmeister and quicksand elemental arent in the same game mode

I likes the Race and Class options in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.

I really want a tweak on some Warlock patrons (especially Great Old One), in Alchemist Artificer, and on Monks (more ki points per level)... Some official material changes are important like revised Ranger. Because homebrews are so arbitrary. Homebrews are nice for creating unique magical items, but I don't like changing class rules.

I love the sorcerer class and I agree they were strong at the beginning levels because they were front-loaded all the way up to level six. Then becomes dead weight with marginal increases in power until level 14 where the sorcerer finally gets their second Sorcery feature. Between levels 7 and 16, you get only 2 ASI at the 8th and 12th levels as well as a Metamagic option at the 10th. At this point, there was no reason to talk about the rest of the sorcery levels. Because 90% of games ended at level 12 and players never got to see what their class can do at higher levels. That's why most of the classes feel like they sucked so much in my option. That's why don't take what's on the classes paper as value. It may look like the greatest shit in the universe, but in practice, it can underperform disastrously. Like the Ranger, Monk, and Sorcerer. Being an older DM/Play that started back in Adnd 2e. I came back to DnD (5 years after 5e. came out). I joined in on some pub games, and I was shocked to find inept lazy DM's that trim the games down with restrictions for their convenience only and lie about how this is how Dnd is meant to be played. This upset me as I always ran high-level campaigns from levels 12-35 in Adnd. So ran a series of one-shots starting at levels 14 to 20. These were deadly campaigns to balance the boosts in class powers. I made Wizards find and buy their spells. That cut down the BS wait time in players having to decide which spell to use on their turn. 4 minutes was the longest wait. The only restriction I placed on all Classes was the removal of their CON modifier to their HP pools unless they take the Durability Feat. Fast forward 3 months later playing on Fridays and Saturdays from 8am to 6pm sometimes extending to 8pm all the way to midnight. I have seen 15 players up and leave their ongoing DM guild rules tables and come to me to play. At this point, I had 22 players to juggle but thankful I gave the parties access to a demi-plane to rest I called it the " Astral Mirage Suites" to allow the mixing of players that show up to easily jump in and play with the others. Of course, some of the DMs got pissed at their players leaving. I have known the game shop owner since high school and after being in the military for 10 years he still remembered me when entered his shop again. So the BS Drama they made up to get rid of me didn't work. I even tried to reason with those DMs and tell them their downside to the reason why the players up and left to make them better DMs. They exploded in a fit of rage at me. All I can do is raise an eyebrow at their baby tantrum. One of them took a swing at me. I respond by introducing him to my experience as a former SFC CI. He was hauled by police and the other 3 DMs were banned from the shop. I continued DM'ing one-shots up until the planned-demic happened. I tried taking it online but I didn't feel natural without reading the players' body language and faces to make course corrections. So I scheduled one more farewell one-shot Bosses battle. Where I took all my 28 BBEGs of certain degrees of power and had my 11 players run the gauntlet fighting them all back to back. That was a great time. We started at 8:30am and didn't finish till 3:40am the next morning.

Thanks Treantmonk!

Hear me out, the custom lineage race, while basically being power creep, especially for non-human races, is still good power creep as it basically introduced a free feat at level one, and this really matters since IMO feats are the thing that help a character most in their concepts, and I really like the free feat at level 1 design overall. Shame that it was attached to only one option, but customizable, but hey if that's the way we get free feats at level 1, I'm fine with it. Also, it gives you darkvision for free and a +2 to any 1 stat, which is good, though since the floating modifier changes it is worse than a +2/+1 to any stat, though not that much worse.

I like the positivity vibe of this video ❤

Working toward an overall re-set of the power balance in 2024-25 rules books, I would hope to see that "darkvision" will require concentration, as if concentrating on a spell.

Tasha’s is my favorite book, so far! 👍🏻

Thanks for this video and you make great points. I still think looking at “power level” more times than not puts people in the wrong headspace. People tend to go for nerf or ban when thinking of these things. I think this is an opportunity, why not take the opportunity to update the older class options? This is what Bone Wizard does on his channel and I think he does a fantastic job at this. Much to Treantmonk’s point it’s about opening up more options.

Power creep can be good when you are rescuing nonviable options and making them competitive with the good ones. When I'm homebrewing for my game, most of what I do is that things that are not remotely competitive, and make them mechanically comparable, while still being attractive to certain builds or playstyles. Feats are the main area here. The Feats are comically non-comparable in their affect on a character. So I edit them. Rarely do I nerf something. More often I will just buff the never-selected options until players start being tempted by them. And it turns out that's lots of fun for everyone!

What do you think of the Eldritch Adept feat? Specifically, do you think the Abjurer Wizard/Armor of Shadows invocation combo was intentional? And would you put it in the good or bad power creep category? 🤔

I would say there is a 4th kind of power creep that's also bad - the designers see a problem and *intend* to fix it... but fixed it the wrong way. This is where I'ld for example put the gloomstalker ranger. There's no doubt that the *intent* of that was to 'fix' the ranger... but instead of fixing -the class- which they also did some of they instead made a subclass and went "If we can give them a really good subclass at least that makes ranger playable" without ... fixing ... the other subclasses appropriately. If WOTC remade the other subclasses in the same book about as powerful as gloomstalker I'ld say it'ld have been good power creep, but WOTC didn't go as far as they needed too (And a bit too far in some other aspects - IE forgetting 1/turn)

A solution to weak barbarian subclasses: When my players pick a weak barb subclass I offer for them to double their rage bonus. (This makes all barbs roughly competetive and expands your options) General fix to Barbarians: Brutal critical now reduces the range for a critical by 1 instead of adding an extra die. (Suddenly Barbs are actually worth playing beyond level 8.)

How do you feel about the Dragon Lance backgrounds/feats for martial and spell casters? Two free feats from a background is insanely strong and just their existence makes it difficult to not beg my GM for.

Power creep, it has the added effect of helping design balance in future editions of the games. Tasha’s is the best example of this. The half feats are pretty much universally loved, as are the base ranger optional feature upgrades. The new sorcerer subclasses? Yep, love those too! The thing is, these (plus others) make the game better with more options, and different ideas and play styles. I would expect (within reason) to see these very popular game design ideas to roll over into the following version, and expansions for it as well. That’s positive change. Just please fix some still odd, and poorly worded game mechanics, and you should have another winner of a game.

Ability scores from Tasha are great. You did not mention fluff-neutral classes or Artificer though

The thing I worry about with 5th edition is that at a certain point with 3/3.5 I decided that if I was going to run a game of it I would have to limit which books were available to phb1 dmg1 the monster manuals and a relevant setting book, and then be willing to discuss a feat feature or subclass on a case by case basis. Now 5th has not gotten to that point of game breakableity yet mostly because there are far far fewer feats and sub-classes in the game, and while there are some overpowered interactions that were clearly unintentional it's not to that degree, but I worry that if all of the current options are still there with the 2024 core rules once they put out a few more supplements we will be getting to that point.

Personally I love the Tashas racial bonus adjustments but I feel it makes Humans a little weaker, imo. Sure, variant human has all the fun with that feat! But I never enjoyed the aspect that it felt like I was playing weaker custom lineage. Or how potentially base human 'potentially' is strong but has nothing going on with it compared to newer designed races. I dont hate the Tashas rules-- Like I said, I love it! I just wish there was better human variants. Or at least ones that were more openly introduced

I've said this in a previous video, but I personally think that addressing balance issues in a class with subclasses isn't great, as more often than not the subclasses exist to help characters fill out a new core fantasy the class couldn't do initially, so locking the power fix behind specific fantasies just isn't great to me. New features and changes to the base class is just a far better solution that I wish WoTC would have used more often.

Adding power crept options is a weird way to do balancing... It leaves behind all the problematic options, and it can't nerf anything. I wonder what ttrpgs would be like if developers could do videogame style balance patches.

Your face when you were...... wait, I made that joke on the other video.

Why the Astral Monk hate? It is really awesome. Its only downside is that it is quite expensive on Ki Points, but that expense is the only thing that makes it sit on equal fitting with the Mercy Monk. In an alternate universe where they both have unlimited Ki, the Astral Monk would be superior to the Mercy Monk.

Question, you didn't mention druid of the stars or simic hybrids as good or bad power creep. What are your thoughts?

I think my complaint about things like the Mercy Monk or the Giant Barbarians is that I would much rather see fixes to the class that give a buff across the board, than see a single subclass that is so vastly better than all the others that there is little point in playing those. Fixing some of the terrible Ranger abilities (Favored Foe, etc.) was a good way to do this. E.g. Monks could really use something like: -All Ki abilities now use your Con modifier instead of Wisdom. Ditto for unarmored defense, it's Dx + Con. Makes the class a little less MAD. -Instead of just their getting their level in Ki points, they get their level + their Con modifier. -Monk's unarmed attacks get a +1/+2/+3 attack and damage bonus at levels 5/11/17. -Monk gets +1/+2/+3 bonus AC to their unarmored defense at levels 5/11/17.

To me i think a big problem is the assumption of the table. Like a part of balance is resource management for spells, but almost every game ive ever run we don't do it because often I have newer players playing casters, not to mention that it makes it harder for me to remember every duck foot, bat wing, etc. or I say they have everything they need, then why have it at all. Tbh my players care much less about power and much more about fun and what you can do.

Thanks for the video. Is there chance for a throwing barb build?

I wish they went back and fixed PHB sorc subclassss the same way they improved the new ones. I like elementalist/wild magic flavor way more than esoteric Far Realm and Order realm stuff.

I’ve made homebrew subclasses myself; even I can tell that some have more power than others while others have more options.

Sansuri's Simulacrum = Old Power Creep

As a long-time Ranger defender, I partially disagree. Whenever I make a Ranger, I barely even consider taking Favored Foe. It’s just a crappy Hunter’s Mark. What’s more, is it’s so bland that it doesn’t do anything interesting outside of numbers either. Lastly, the game impact is so *wildly* different from the original Favored Enemy, that I see no reason for them to have one replace the other, rather than just giving both. Deft Explorer is a solid contender for replacing Natural Explorer, but I wouldn’t call it power creep. They have a lot of overlap, and successfully convey two different but similar aspects of the same concept. If you have a DM that successfully communicated the expectations of the campaign, then Natural Explorer is arguably the better choice with its abundance of situational expertise. The only problem 2014 Ranger ever really had was Beast Master being messy. Primal Companion *kinda* fixed that, but completely left the Beast Master out to dry for lvl 7. Plus you can’t even cast the beast buff spells on it due to its high Int stat.

You should have showed Wild hart Guff fore that Hearthstone blizzard reference

Is One D&D going to be considered power creep, or a total power reset?

I will continually argue and complain that Ranger's Tasha's options should have been add-ons instead of replacements for Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy. I'd much rather Canny have been scrapped and have Favored Foe (with maybe a less similar name to Favored Enemy), Roving, and Tireless stack on top of the PHB Ranger's base level 1 kit.

One system I think handles power creep well is pathfinder 2nd edition. With every book, theres usually one thing thats generally stronger than something before, but its almost never to the point of being too strong in comparison to someone whos pc didnt take it.

Thats great! Thanks Chris!

I always thought that the Giant Barb was kinda iffy, cause that ranged attack option they get with throwing weapon was somewhat random and felt like a placeholder. I like subclasses to be narrow specializations if possible as in my mind it would entice more teamwork. And having a Barb who at some point gets increased Reach on his melee attacks, so you are enticed to try and build an area-control warrior, but then they get a thrown weapon attack for no reason, felt redundant to me.

I wrote a variable spell list table for the PHB Hunter conclave Ranger, it's been a huge hit. 4 sub-paths in Hunter for specializing in AoE, single target damage, tracking, more leaning into combat magic, etc. Once you choose a sub-path you can't take take a different one to keep things in check. Been a massive hit, and makes plying Hunter so much more fun for people.

It wasn't that Gloomstalker was too powerful compared to other ranger builds, it's that other ranger builds were just absolutely awful compared to other classes. Rangers have a few subclasses on par with Gloomstalker (like Fey Wandered), and they're on par with other good subclasses from other classes. That was necessary powercreep. Just like Undead warlock all but replacing Undying warlock. Undying has cool flavor, but hot damn is it barely even a subclass. Undead is an actual good subclass with good features and can pull its own weight.

I never understand why new Ranger features from Tasha replaced old ones ... I mean yeah they are universaly "better" ... i gues ... but Ranger lost lots of its identity. :( And feel free to corect me, but i feel like they didnt really work against each other ... So it would be quite fine imho, if Ranger would have both original and new features simultaneously.

I’m sorry, I just gotta ask… do you have a second channel? One that covers modded Minecraft? If not, look up direwolf20, it’s literally the exact same voice as you Hope I’m not revealing some kinda secret second identity lol

Zealot Barbarian is probably best to damage if you build a character, but Giant Barbarian is better if you just level up in this class

For something like the tool rules in Xanathar, would you really call that power creep? I wouldn't call something going from basically useless to somewhat useful power creep, especially since in 90% of cases, tools are probably gonna be used in exploration/RP settings and not in actual combat/dungeon scenario. I'd call that a necessary change instead of power creep. But I get where you're going.

5:15 Tasha's Ability Score swaps Personally I hate this change. While it was introduced as an optional rule, it since then has become core for all new races meaning for new content it was never optional. The moment those bonuses were divorced from race/ancestry was the moment those ceased being bonuses and became numbers bloat, and instead should be cut all together. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of PCs becoming more powerful (one of my players recently body-snatched an ancient bronze dragon), but that's something they should be doing over the adventure (they didn't achieve this till lvl18). The starting power floor just going up and up just makes it harder for new DMs to handle running long campaigns with PCs too easily overpowering what published adventures and encounter suggestions would indicate as level appropriate challenges. Then the other comment you made at 5:54 about being 'mechanically punished' .... just no. A bonus to other stats is not a punishment. At the absolute worst case, a bonus to a stat you would otherwise dump for you build is minimizing a weakness. Example: You put your 8 in Dex, but get a +2 to Dex from your race? Congratulations on not having a negative modifier to your dex saves any more. There are also option in alternative builds. Paladin being default as a Str class, but Dex paladins are also a viable option, and can open up interesting party dynamics of having your party's frontliner also be the stealthy/acrobat. "But flexible race ASIs can also..." cutting you off there. They don't encourage it. The limitations of static ASIs encourages players to seek alternate solutions, flexible ASIs lead to cookie cutter repetition of always using the same build. It goes away from "My orc paladin is a Str build" "My elf paladin is a Dex build" "My tiefling paladin is a Cha build" "we all play a different character build" to "My orc paladin is a Str build" "My elf paladin is a Str build" "My tiefling paladin is a Str build" "we all play the same build"

The question that remains to be answered: why is there a picture of an ultramarine in background when you say "powercreep"?

Mentioning Blizzard at the beginning made me think of the other side of WotC. MyG has SO much power creep isn't even funny. Looking at cards from when I played and the ones now. It gives whiplash.

Great video.

Thanks Chris

I find it a bit silly that somehow barbarians needed more super powerful subclasses when totem and zealot already exist, and I find it silly as well the notion that giant is stronger than these 2, they are comparable.

Tasha's change to racial ability scores didn't really remove the so-called "right choice for race", it just changed which race is the "right choice". Instead of picking races for optimal ability scores, tasha's gives everyone optimal ability scores so people pick optimal racial features. Which is not to say it's a problem (I recognize that I'm a very small minority on this hill) but the effect Tasha's had was less about removing un-optimal ability scores (TBH a minor issue outside of hyper optimizers) and more about stacking as many of the best racial/class feature combos as possible. Barbarians resistant to EVERYTHING? done. Fighters with advantage against all magic? done. Your choice of elf gish isn't perfectly minmaxed for Elven Accuracy? it is now. Etc. 5e is so poorly thought out as far as broken/OP combos goes and flexible racial scores opens up so many more. Rant over.

I don't see how it would help to sell more books. All the informations are free on the internet...

I don't think the change to racial ability bonuses is a good thing at all and often removes options, not adds them. Taking sub optimal stat bonuses in exchange for a useful racial feature is an interesting choice. If you are familiar with Wrath of the Righteous (the video game as opposed to pnp), the kitsune can take a feat which allows them to use pounce as a feat in the midgame. They also get a bite attack. They always take a penalty to strength however, regardless of subrace. There are plenty of strength based builds where pounce is a very powerful feature. Is a net -4 strength (relative to a race with a strength bonus) a reasonable trade for pounce at level 11 as well as an additional (albeit fairly weak) attack? It might well be, and its an interesting choice. If you could simply decide what your stat bonuses are regardless of race, the kitsune goes from an interesting tradeoff to in many cases a no brainer. I felt much the same about character creation in BG3. It just reduces the choice to non stat bonuses, meaning a smaller basket of features overall, meaning a less interesting choice. And then there is just the fact lorewise, it feels like removing texture from the game and in some instances is just plain silly. The average physical and psychological traits of different species are not plausibly going to be the same, nor are the outliers of each race. The strongest halfling being as strong as the strongest halforc is just silly.

Tasha's custom stats has gotta be teh signle best change made midway through 5e, I personally thought racial stats were dumb and stupid and dumb and I didn't like them and this let's you be mroe free with what you pick and make your racial abilities feel mroe genuinely suited to realising what you want to play and not just pidgeonholing you into certain common archetypes. "Wood elves are sneaky, stoic protectors of the forest" so they make good rogues, druids, rangers, monks and clerics is way worse than "wood elves often live in the wilderness, so they know how to move through it quickly and hide well in it"

Aberrant Mind Sorc is the most powerful sorc at 6+.

Why is having a much more powerful subclass that obsoletes other classes good for monk and sorcerer, but bad for ranger?

Only loosely related to power creep but… At some point there needs to be a discussion of what would be an acceptable solution to the martial/caster divide. Increase the durability of martials? Increase the single target damage of martials? Better magic items for martials? What class feature should an optimized 10th level Barbarian have that makes them a viable choice next to an optimized 10th level Wizard?

I’d barely consider giving the weakest classes decent to good subclasses power creep. That’s just power parity with other already “better” classes.

You are wrong about racial ASIs. "Mismatching" race and class ability scores helps to shore up class weaknesses. Being a paladin with 10 Wisdom instead of 8 is still a bonus

I think a general power creep is good for any game, who doesn't like being more powerful? the problem is the distribution of that power. the key to power creep is to both even out the playing field between players and but also making all players more powerful, balance against monsters should be secondary to how fun it is to fight them and how evenly the players have effect on the battle. In this sense power creep is a generally good thing but when over applied or unevenly applied it creates more issues then it solves.

These designs are the most irritating -- don't just release better subclasses! Fix the base classes! Will 6e do this? Of course not, they still need to keep selling more content. But it'll help.

I appreciate looking at the good aspects when most analysis is on the negative aspects and often sounds whiney.

I'm going to take a moment to address the assertion that power creep creates fewer options, not more. This is undoubtedly sometimes true, but not as often as you're asserting. For example, the dreaded Gloom Stalker. As you noted, before that, Ranger was the weakest class. If you were doing an optimized multiclass build, you did not include Ranger. So your Ranger options went from 0 to 1. Hexblade similarly opened up many, many options. Your gishes usually weren't dipping Warlock, because why? But Hexblade opened up so many options in Bard and Paladin that simply didn't work before. You also didn't call out the two strong Sorcerer options from Tasha's, because they were actively good for the game. I'm readily with you on Peace/Twilight Cleric and all the Wildemount stuff. I'll also call out that we waited 10 years and never got the Monk's version of the Gloom Stalker -- a subclass good enough that it made the class viable for a multiclass. One DnD's monk fixes are exciting, I can't wait. But I think with Gloom Stalker and Hexblade specifically, you're correct that you see them in multiclass builds all the time, but those builds aren't really "competing" with pure Ranger or Warlock builds. You see more Drakewarden15 than you see Gloom Stalker15, at least that I've witnessed. I don't see a lot of Hexblades advance past level 6. Also, Custom Lineage shouldn't be the "last resort" option, but people should use it properly, and they don't. It's an invitation to play literally anything you want, and it's not used creatively. You can play as something a Beholder dreamed into existence, or a super-intelligent animal, or a Kuo-Toa atheist, or whatever else you want. People aren't answering the call, is the problem.

I disagree about the power creep of the ability score adjustment being a choice rather than static as good. So now we have: Fighter elves Barbarian Elves Warlock Elves Sorcerer Elves Wizard Elves Rogue Elves Nobody wants to play an "ugly" race if they can just play the "pretty" race. Games I have run since Tasha's where I allowed it, I get nothing but elves and other similar races. If I don't allow Tasha's I get Orc Barbarians, Dwarf Fighters, Halfling Warlocks, Gnome Wizards.

WotC has such a poor handle on their game that power doesn’t creep. It dead on sprints. It’s like they don’t play test their own new content. First time I read the PHB, I knew moon Druid was the best Druid and Bear Totem Barb was the best Barb. I didn’t even know the system yet. They clearly don’t play test things effectively.

Videos like this show the hypocrites in the community. "Good power creep" another, more appropriate term, BALANCING. and in the case of deciding weather something is good or bad is an OPINION. In the situation of every argued OP/broken antidote presented I can present first hand examples of the exact opposite of the presented claims. In fact the only time that I can recall possibly supporting an argument is only a half support as the encounter would have resulted in a TPK without that specific summon spell being used and even then the deciding factor was a subclass feature and that the DM didn't choose to have the encounter follow the party after the round it would have taken to eliminate all the conjured creatures. So based on my first hand experience all the examples of Powercreep are falsely labeled as none of them have resulted in the broken results alleged and with the majority of my play experience being in AL, an environment where you have to try and build OP/broken builds just to be relevant against the restrictions placed, this means that the goal of many is to "break" the game.

Countercharm is still useless though.

The whole "it doesn't matter what race you take, you can just choose what ability scores get boosted" rethoric is actually BAD for the game, imo. It makes it a purely esthetic choice, instead of a narrative one with depth. It makes no sense narratively to have a halfling be stronger than the strongest orc, or a dwarf being more nimble than the nimblest of elves. If you want to play a wood elf paladin, just go and do that. It doesn't have to be a maxed out charisma character for it to be fun. This same argument is what they try to do with the "stats are coupled with your background now, instead of race". I absolutely hate that pandering..

No. Just saved you 15 minutes. D&D 5e has been getting tangibly worse in almost every way since Tasha's and the Custom Lineages / Lineages rules came out. Since they ruined orcs and kobolds and made a bunch of humanoid races not humanoid anymore. Since they stopped taking the hobby seriously, simply because it's fiction. Because they have no clue how to take themselves seriously. D&D, for many generations and editions, and versions was always built in a way that was consistent. It had struggles to overcome built and baked in. Now it's treated as cheap power fantasy by spoiled adult children who never saw the virtue in growing up and taking responsibility for success *and* failure. It's not better, and I hate the mindset that ruined it. It was by autists for autists. And now it's bland, grey, everyman garbage.

I don't agree that 3.5e power creep was huge. Sure if you allowed ALL options from ALL books you could make some insane combinations. But plain 3.5e PHB Cleric, Druid or Wizard without any other books were some of the most powerful options across the entire edition. You didn't need anything but the PHB to create a powerful character. Martials and Bards got a lot more options from later books, but several core classes were extremely powerful.

Dragonborn are terrible thematically

i don't like post-tasha ability scores. The point of fixing ability scores was to give the races cahracter. might as well completely removed them then.

I do not believe the ranger is more powerful. The tasha's options make rangers more accessible to common players.

Sorcerer subclasses better than wizard in anyway. İts power creep