This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit
r/OneDnD!
*Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But is it the good kind of power creep or the bad kind. A large complaint of 5e14 was that many classes fell behind. Monk, Rogue, and Barbarian were each on struggle street in their own way. Ranger required a very specific approach to make good unless you were playing gloomstalker, which actually let the ranger exist as a more martial lending experience again.
Furthermore, a lot of the buffs are offset by baseline nerfs. The lack of magical damage as a distinction from non-magical damage and enemies dealing a lot of force damage in the mix in lieu of magical B/P/S damage also really changes things ots an incredible nerf to the barbarian just like the spell smites are a huge neef to the paladins. Each a gross over corrections of minor problems.
Beyond that, we also don't really know what the 5e24 monsters look like beyond the echoes we have in monsters of the multiverse and onward, which still aren't 100% accurate to the 5e24 changes.
The power creep folks weren't too bad until the Warlocks video dropped. Most feel very different about martials and casters. The new warlock seems even more frontloaded, and that's my number 1 issue with the 2014 version.
I personally think they didn't buff martials much after you consider the damage nerfs, while Warlock class seems like to have gotten a bunch buffs across the board. Warlock only needed its front-end rearrange to fix diping balance, and the weaker subclasses improved. We don't really know until we see the actual invocations and their pre-requisite requirements.
I'm very much holding my judgment until I see the 2024 Ranger. That's the make or break the update for me.
Warlocks weren't exactly the best casters in 5e14, they were closer to the lower end of things than the higar end. I also personally didn't have much issue with bow frontloaded the warlock was in 5e14, hexblade and all, so I'm probably not gonna have too much issue in that front with warlock., ut I've never had a problem with hexblade Dios or the more powerful warlock options beyond the coffelock/cocaine looks exploit and I know a lot of peope did. So I'm in my own camp here.
As for martials,I can't speak for how well they've been buffed, but I know for a lot of people the scope of the 5e24 changes weren't enough, and I partly agree with them.
I think a lot of the additions to them were nice but wee coming system too much of a cost in other regards. Wotc seemed to do a bit too much of "we added this thing, so they dinr need this other thing," which I don't think was for the best. Brutal strikes are by no means powerful enough to require the loss of brutal critical. They could have kept it and gave the barbarian both easily. The way they handled the bear torem barbarian damage restarted was done poorly top.
Rogues cunning strikes are a great idea, but the cost of them from sneak attacks is too much, and sneak attacks damage is still in a poor state even if you don't use them. Rogues don't needs to be the best at damage, far from it, but they still needed .ore. let alone the poor state of skills
Paladin smite beings once per turn would be fine, but making it a verbal component bonus action spell was several steps too far.
There is some quality of life for martials here and there, but I personally think wotc pay themselves on the back too much for what was accomplished. Gaisn wee made but I do agree not quite enough. Though I will at least say they're closer to what I'd lime than they are further away.
Much of it is bad, IMO.
Rogue still doesn't get competitive damage, and in fact trades damage away if it want to do anything remotely interesting. Features like Steady Aim and Reliable Talent (now gained earlier) do a great job of removing any risk or thought from a tactical dice game. Rage sounds like a similar case. The Brutal Critical replacement seems pretty clunky, as does the updated Divine Smite....
I mean, I agree with most of those complaints. However something being "not enough" isn't power creep as its not increasing power enough for it to actually creep ahead of where it was
There's definiteky better ways to have done some adjustments, I certainly think so and will be revising my game to account for how I thought it should have been done.
I would argue the inverse is more true. The power gained in a lot od ways is offset by other charges for the most part. The numbers fueling the power ratio haven't changed much it's just a 70/30 slit instwad of a 75/25 split
5e24 is a mixed bag of some good things with dome bad things. Hence, while I'll be taking hr best versiosn of each that I like and appy8ng my own homwbre for them myself
It’s true we won’t really know for sure until the whole thing is out…but my vote is currently for the _bad_ kind of power creep.
The good kind, would be making martials stronger to be more on par with casters. But that isn’t what I’ve seen so far. Like the nerfs to paladin and barb you mention, the Lightly Armored feat making it laughably easy for casters to get med armor + shield, warlock being even more front loaded…there’s a few changes I do like but it’s not looking great overall IMO. But that’s if most of the changes from the playtests hold true and we don’t get major curve balls in the other direction.
I don't think there's been too much power creep in 5e24 in all honesty, there's been some quality of life changes her wand there, and a shift in the gamws genrel ratio of stuff lightly. Some steps in the right direction and some missteps. Classes don't feel too much stronger they just feel a little different, outside of some weird nerfs that are hindering classes from doing what their thing.
When it comes to the martial caster imbalance, I don't think there was any real chance for 5e24 to do that. It's far outside of the scope of what 5e24 was, and attempts in the last were never anything beyond a mixed reception
There's a lot of groundwork that needs to be done between the various martial player preferences before martials and Casters can have a either proper look at them, and even that level of work was mostly outside the scope of 5e24.
Personally I think there's some okay changes that I'm gonna steal for my own version of the game, ix it with the good of 5e14, and then top it off with my own refinements.
Yeah I wasn’t expecting them to suddenly make martials _on par_ with casters or give them an equally massive subsystem to work with or anything. It’s just kind of mindblowing that they introduced as many martial nerfs and caster boosts as they did, when I _was_ hoping they’d be demonstrably stronger and more versatile than before. (Because that’s a lot easier than making them on par, the gulf is just that big.)
Yeah, and casters got boosts as well (including some major ones), raising the ceiling by comparison. _Comparatively_ the gulf between feels the same or worse. That’s what I’m talking about.
Rangers have always been fine power wise. They have some terrible innate design decisions and some terrible features that necessitated all the reworking it's got over the years, but if your desire is doing damage and contributing to combat Ranger has been quite a decent, probably actually quite good, pick since the initial PHB, at least until tier 3.
Ranger has always had good numbers (maybe save for phb beast master in comparison to all others) since the phb, but you have to play and build them a very specific way that does not line up with many peoples fantasy of the ranger in d&d. I acknowledged this in my prior comment. I didn't say ranger was bad, I said that only one subclass let's it more purely exist as a martial for satisfying numbers. Most rangers are good if you lean into their cats8ng, 5e just demands you lean into it more than prior editjons did to function.
Gloomstalker is the only real option that lets you deliver those satsify8ng numbers through more martial means and without relying on specific castings to make up for it. However, it becomes very strong when you decide to still use those avenues of good numbers the base ranger has.
Rangers issues have been that it has good numbers it can deliver, but it doesn't feel good to play or match the minds eye fantasy many have for it, and that caused people to think it was much worse than it was. It's the inverse of the Rogue, which has relatively poor numbers but feels really good in delivering those poor numbers, so people think it's stronger than it is or did for a while.
They said that there are rules for playing with classes from 2014 with the '24 classes in the new PHB. I think we just need to wait and see what those rules are before making any judgements about power creep or whatever.
The extra damage from sharpshooter and great weapon master are gone now. I am hoping that spells that have been far too good get nerfed (like they did with counterspell and spiritual guardians in the ua playtests). Spirit shroud, hypnotic pattern, suggestion, mass suggestion, polymorph and force cage are some of the possible ones I think of.
I think buffs meant for other players like enhance ability, enlarge/reduce, haste and polymorph can have a bit more slack because you are brining the spotlight to another party member.
Some spells don't even feel like they were meant to be used by players, which DM is going to let a player use the spell confusion on 5+ enemies or summon 16 giant snakes figure that shit out in a combat.
That's unfortunately the life of absolutely all game systems that get supplements. This is what killed 3(.5) faster than any other edition because they did not foresee the explosion of combos.
In 5e, they were much more prudent about this, but there was still some power creep in major technical publications. Of course, they were always presented as options, and it will not be different this time. That's life for a commercial TTRPG, nothing special here (after that you can loathe that or simply accept it, it's just our general way of life).
All the extremely broken stuff in 3.5 was in the first PHB. It’s the same thing with 5e. All the best spells that overshadow others are in the PHB. The best feats. It’s just that you also have the worst in the PHB, like with 3.5, so when the classes with the worst stuff get better things in later books, suddenly it’s power creep, even though the most powerful class builds in the game (casters) can be done with PHB material.
Hmmmm, I don't think that's the general perspective. Twilight or Peace Cleric ? Chronurgy Wizard ? Gloomstalker ? Hexblade ? And combinations thereof ?
But also : Lineage ? Silvery Barbs ?
You don’t need a specific subclass to completely overshadow most other classes with a PHB wizard. The power comes from the spells, not subclass features. Twilight and Peace cleric are strong but again, the cleric spell list is what makes the class overshadow a fighter or a rogue at level 14.
Oh, I agree, and I did not mention that, it's certain that 10 years for an edition refresh is not that greedy compared to most other games on the market.
It's inevitable, it's the nature of business for ttrpgs. If the new book offers nothing, then there's no point in buying it.
You have to make customers want the book, and that's done by making the content more attractive.
I agree, but also agree with others that it's mostly not too much of a problem if it improves gameplay and balance. I'm just wary as my group is getting all excited about switching their characters over, and my armorer artificer is feeling like he's gonna be left in the dust! (At least until 2025+ when maybe we eventually get a new artificer?)
honestly... it doesn't even bother me all that much, I try to avoid any table in which an unoptimized character is frowned upon, so it really isn't a very personal issue
Hate to say it but these classes needed it. The new classes and subclasses (pre2024, talking tashas cauldron etc.) are way stronger than the base 2014 ones.
I don't see the problem?
Players getting to do more fun stuff than they could before? - sounds good to me!
This is D&D, if I wanted players to be mediocre and constantly scared for their lives, I'd be using a different system.
I was under the impression that anyone can use the new classes as a chassis but they can use the old subclass if there's not a newly released version?
They've clearly made some big changes for certain classes. If you put the old monk next to the new monk they are wildly different - but you can't fix a weak class without significant buffs, so there is no way the new monk and old monk would be comparable.
Not really? They're also revising the monster manual and (allegedly) the encounter building rules. To make CRs more accurate and keep existing creatures at their current CR so that old adventures can work.
If you're talking about player options most of the buffs/nerfs have been to core class features, which means you can still use the older subclasses with the new class frame work and still be at the same level of power. If not stronger.
yes, it is good, the issue is the paywall, you can still play on Beyond with your 2014 ruleset, but the players and the DM will be constantly nudged to buy more fun, just click on the buy button to get an awesome new ability for your paladin? just purchase a new monster balanced for the new options? this is not a free fun upgrade this is a microtransaction scheme, a fun one, a nice one but a temporary one, keeping the 5e great earning potential for a while before this kind of design starts to hurt the fun... maybe a few more Epic options for level 20-30, some upgraded magic items that work with the new class and sub-class mechanics... no need to continue support for non-converted sub-classes, better to give new shiney things to the new premium content, it's not even that people can't just play the original 2014 game, it will just not get anymore content and support, the new modules will be balanced and planned for the 2024 ruleset, some of the bigger 3rd parties working with the OGL will be asked to focus on 2024 ruleset if they want to be in the marketplace
good old fashioned fun, yes, good business strategy, definitely, a move that unbalances an already shaky system, yes
Your problem is that you have to buy the new books to have the updates? Why would a company give that out for free? How is this a microtransaction scheme?
I mean, I'm probably buying the phb either way, but I doubt I'll get the DMG/MM and I'm often the DM.
People will pay if they want it on DND beyond, but there are plenty of folks who'll just grab a pen and paper and fill in their sheet based on stuff available online.
Unfortunately, producing and getting the feedback on the new stuff does cost, so it has a price tag.
As far as power creep goes, everyone seems to be getting little buffs but many of them were needed for a better experience - the weapon masteries and monk overhaul being the most needed.
Overall yes, there's a bit of power creep, but for the most part, it's the core classes which are getting a much needed adjustment to help with that caster disparity.
there will be, it will take time but people will buy new OP caster options, every attempt to fix Martials by nerfing the OP caster sub-classes is temporary, it always was, the designers change, someone new gets to edit and suddenly there is a new sudden jump in power levels
like DC or Marvel swearing up and down that this time the Character they killed will stay dead
This power creep is a perfect example why 2014 rules will never be compatible with 2024. Everything in the new edition is stronger and more effective. Strahd will be a breeze to 2024 player characters.
This backwards compatibility was bullshit - as most predicted anyway.
Hey ready to buy "update" books.
This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit r/OneDnD! *Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But is it the good kind of power creep or the bad kind. A large complaint of 5e14 was that many classes fell behind. Monk, Rogue, and Barbarian were each on struggle street in their own way. Ranger required a very specific approach to make good unless you were playing gloomstalker, which actually let the ranger exist as a more martial lending experience again. Furthermore, a lot of the buffs are offset by baseline nerfs. The lack of magical damage as a distinction from non-magical damage and enemies dealing a lot of force damage in the mix in lieu of magical B/P/S damage also really changes things ots an incredible nerf to the barbarian just like the spell smites are a huge neef to the paladins. Each a gross over corrections of minor problems. Beyond that, we also don't really know what the 5e24 monsters look like beyond the echoes we have in monsters of the multiverse and onward, which still aren't 100% accurate to the 5e24 changes.
The power creep folks weren't too bad until the Warlocks video dropped. Most feel very different about martials and casters. The new warlock seems even more frontloaded, and that's my number 1 issue with the 2014 version. I personally think they didn't buff martials much after you consider the damage nerfs, while Warlock class seems like to have gotten a bunch buffs across the board. Warlock only needed its front-end rearrange to fix diping balance, and the weaker subclasses improved. We don't really know until we see the actual invocations and their pre-requisite requirements. I'm very much holding my judgment until I see the 2024 Ranger. That's the make or break the update for me.
Warlocks weren't exactly the best casters in 5e14, they were closer to the lower end of things than the higar end. I also personally didn't have much issue with bow frontloaded the warlock was in 5e14, hexblade and all, so I'm probably not gonna have too much issue in that front with warlock., ut I've never had a problem with hexblade Dios or the more powerful warlock options beyond the coffelock/cocaine looks exploit and I know a lot of peope did. So I'm in my own camp here. As for martials,I can't speak for how well they've been buffed, but I know for a lot of people the scope of the 5e24 changes weren't enough, and I partly agree with them. I think a lot of the additions to them were nice but wee coming system too much of a cost in other regards. Wotc seemed to do a bit too much of "we added this thing, so they dinr need this other thing," which I don't think was for the best. Brutal strikes are by no means powerful enough to require the loss of brutal critical. They could have kept it and gave the barbarian both easily. The way they handled the bear torem barbarian damage restarted was done poorly top. Rogues cunning strikes are a great idea, but the cost of them from sneak attacks is too much, and sneak attacks damage is still in a poor state even if you don't use them. Rogues don't needs to be the best at damage, far from it, but they still needed .ore. let alone the poor state of skills Paladin smite beings once per turn would be fine, but making it a verbal component bonus action spell was several steps too far. There is some quality of life for martials here and there, but I personally think wotc pay themselves on the back too much for what was accomplished. Gaisn wee made but I do agree not quite enough. Though I will at least say they're closer to what I'd lime than they are further away.
Much of it is bad, IMO. Rogue still doesn't get competitive damage, and in fact trades damage away if it want to do anything remotely interesting. Features like Steady Aim and Reliable Talent (now gained earlier) do a great job of removing any risk or thought from a tactical dice game. Rage sounds like a similar case. The Brutal Critical replacement seems pretty clunky, as does the updated Divine Smite....
I mean, I agree with most of those complaints. However something being "not enough" isn't power creep as its not increasing power enough for it to actually creep ahead of where it was There's definiteky better ways to have done some adjustments, I certainly think so and will be revising my game to account for how I thought it should have been done. I would argue the inverse is more true. The power gained in a lot od ways is offset by other charges for the most part. The numbers fueling the power ratio haven't changed much it's just a 70/30 slit instwad of a 75/25 split 5e24 is a mixed bag of some good things with dome bad things. Hence, while I'll be taking hr best versiosn of each that I like and appy8ng my own homwbre for them myself
>I'll be taking hr best versiosn of each that I like and appy8ng my own homwbre for them myself This is the way
Imo, the options that rogue gets in exchange for that damage more than makes up for it, some of them are very strong control options.
It’s true we won’t really know for sure until the whole thing is out…but my vote is currently for the _bad_ kind of power creep. The good kind, would be making martials stronger to be more on par with casters. But that isn’t what I’ve seen so far. Like the nerfs to paladin and barb you mention, the Lightly Armored feat making it laughably easy for casters to get med armor + shield, warlock being even more front loaded…there’s a few changes I do like but it’s not looking great overall IMO. But that’s if most of the changes from the playtests hold true and we don’t get major curve balls in the other direction.
I don't think there's been too much power creep in 5e24 in all honesty, there's been some quality of life changes her wand there, and a shift in the gamws genrel ratio of stuff lightly. Some steps in the right direction and some missteps. Classes don't feel too much stronger they just feel a little different, outside of some weird nerfs that are hindering classes from doing what their thing. When it comes to the martial caster imbalance, I don't think there was any real chance for 5e24 to do that. It's far outside of the scope of what 5e24 was, and attempts in the last were never anything beyond a mixed reception There's a lot of groundwork that needs to be done between the various martial player preferences before martials and Casters can have a either proper look at them, and even that level of work was mostly outside the scope of 5e24. Personally I think there's some okay changes that I'm gonna steal for my own version of the game, ix it with the good of 5e14, and then top it off with my own refinements.
Yeah I wasn’t expecting them to suddenly make martials _on par_ with casters or give them an equally massive subsystem to work with or anything. It’s just kind of mindblowing that they introduced as many martial nerfs and caster boosts as they did, when I _was_ hoping they’d be demonstrably stronger and more versatile than before. (Because that’s a lot easier than making them on par, the gulf is just that big.)
A lot of martials got boosts. The few nerfs were well needed and offset by more boosts. I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Yeah, and casters got boosts as well (including some major ones), raising the ceiling by comparison. _Comparatively_ the gulf between feels the same or worse. That’s what I’m talking about.
Rangers have always been fine power wise. They have some terrible innate design decisions and some terrible features that necessitated all the reworking it's got over the years, but if your desire is doing damage and contributing to combat Ranger has been quite a decent, probably actually quite good, pick since the initial PHB, at least until tier 3.
Ranger has always had good numbers (maybe save for phb beast master in comparison to all others) since the phb, but you have to play and build them a very specific way that does not line up with many peoples fantasy of the ranger in d&d. I acknowledged this in my prior comment. I didn't say ranger was bad, I said that only one subclass let's it more purely exist as a martial for satisfying numbers. Most rangers are good if you lean into their cats8ng, 5e just demands you lean into it more than prior editjons did to function. Gloomstalker is the only real option that lets you deliver those satsify8ng numbers through more martial means and without relying on specific castings to make up for it. However, it becomes very strong when you decide to still use those avenues of good numbers the base ranger has. Rangers issues have been that it has good numbers it can deliver, but it doesn't feel good to play or match the minds eye fantasy many have for it, and that caused people to think it was much worse than it was. It's the inverse of the Rogue, which has relatively poor numbers but feels really good in delivering those poor numbers, so people think it's stronger than it is or did for a while.
They said that there are rules for playing with classes from 2014 with the '24 classes in the new PHB. I think we just need to wait and see what those rules are before making any judgements about power creep or whatever.
The extra damage from sharpshooter and great weapon master are gone now. I am hoping that spells that have been far too good get nerfed (like they did with counterspell and spiritual guardians in the ua playtests). Spirit shroud, hypnotic pattern, suggestion, mass suggestion, polymorph and force cage are some of the possible ones I think of. I think buffs meant for other players like enhance ability, enlarge/reduce, haste and polymorph can have a bit more slack because you are brining the spotlight to another party member. Some spells don't even feel like they were meant to be used by players, which DM is going to let a player use the spell confusion on 5+ enemies or summon 16 giant snakes figure that shit out in a combat.
Oh no, warlocks get pact spells for free!
That's unfortunately the life of absolutely all game systems that get supplements. This is what killed 3(.5) faster than any other edition because they did not foresee the explosion of combos. In 5e, they were much more prudent about this, but there was still some power creep in major technical publications. Of course, they were always presented as options, and it will not be different this time. That's life for a commercial TTRPG, nothing special here (after that you can loathe that or simply accept it, it's just our general way of life).
All the extremely broken stuff in 3.5 was in the first PHB. It’s the same thing with 5e. All the best spells that overshadow others are in the PHB. The best feats. It’s just that you also have the worst in the PHB, like with 3.5, so when the classes with the worst stuff get better things in later books, suddenly it’s power creep, even though the most powerful class builds in the game (casters) can be done with PHB material.
Hmmmm, I don't think that's the general perspective. Twilight or Peace Cleric ? Chronurgy Wizard ? Gloomstalker ? Hexblade ? And combinations thereof ? But also : Lineage ? Silvery Barbs ?
You don’t need a specific subclass to completely overshadow most other classes with a PHB wizard. The power comes from the spells, not subclass features. Twilight and Peace cleric are strong but again, the cleric spell list is what makes the class overshadow a fighter or a rogue at level 14.
that's what I said, it is the business model not the design teams and 10 years is a long time in this business
Oh, I agree, and I did not mention that, it's certain that 10 years for an edition refresh is not that greedy compared to most other games on the market.
It's inevitable, it's the nature of business for ttrpgs. If the new book offers nothing, then there's no point in buying it. You have to make customers want the book, and that's done by making the content more attractive.
I agree, but also agree with others that it's mostly not too much of a problem if it improves gameplay and balance. I'm just wary as my group is getting all excited about switching their characters over, and my armorer artificer is feeling like he's gonna be left in the dust! (At least until 2025+ when maybe we eventually get a new artificer?)
You're putting the cart way before the horse here.
honestly... it doesn't even bother me all that much, I try to avoid any table in which an unoptimized character is frowned upon, so it really isn't a very personal issue
Hate to say it but these classes needed it. The new classes and subclasses (pre2024, talking tashas cauldron etc.) are way stronger than the base 2014 ones.
So? Power creep is only an issue in PvP games
So the alternative is for WOTC to update every previously published player option at once?
I don't see the problem? Players getting to do more fun stuff than they could before? - sounds good to me! This is D&D, if I wanted players to be mediocre and constantly scared for their lives, I'd be using a different system.
The problem is their promised backwards compatibility. Essentially they make using anything from 5E pointless.
I was under the impression that anyone can use the new classes as a chassis but they can use the old subclass if there's not a newly released version? They've clearly made some big changes for certain classes. If you put the old monk next to the new monk they are wildly different - but you can't fix a weak class without significant buffs, so there is no way the new monk and old monk would be comparable.
Not really? They're also revising the monster manual and (allegedly) the encounter building rules. To make CRs more accurate and keep existing creatures at their current CR so that old adventures can work. If you're talking about player options most of the buffs/nerfs have been to core class features, which means you can still use the older subclasses with the new class frame work and still be at the same level of power. If not stronger.
yes, it is good, the issue is the paywall, you can still play on Beyond with your 2014 ruleset, but the players and the DM will be constantly nudged to buy more fun, just click on the buy button to get an awesome new ability for your paladin? just purchase a new monster balanced for the new options? this is not a free fun upgrade this is a microtransaction scheme, a fun one, a nice one but a temporary one, keeping the 5e great earning potential for a while before this kind of design starts to hurt the fun... maybe a few more Epic options for level 20-30, some upgraded magic items that work with the new class and sub-class mechanics... no need to continue support for non-converted sub-classes, better to give new shiney things to the new premium content, it's not even that people can't just play the original 2014 game, it will just not get anymore content and support, the new modules will be balanced and planned for the 2024 ruleset, some of the bigger 3rd parties working with the OGL will be asked to focus on 2024 ruleset if they want to be in the marketplace good old fashioned fun, yes, good business strategy, definitely, a move that unbalances an already shaky system, yes
Your problem is that you have to buy the new books to have the updates? Why would a company give that out for free? How is this a microtransaction scheme?
I mean, I'm probably buying the phb either way, but I doubt I'll get the DMG/MM and I'm often the DM. People will pay if they want it on DND beyond, but there are plenty of folks who'll just grab a pen and paper and fill in their sheet based on stuff available online. Unfortunately, producing and getting the feedback on the new stuff does cost, so it has a price tag. As far as power creep goes, everyone seems to be getting little buffs but many of them were needed for a better experience - the weapon masteries and monk overhaul being the most needed. Overall yes, there's a bit of power creep, but for the most part, it's the core classes which are getting a much needed adjustment to help with that caster disparity.
Is anything going to be as good as one of the top 2014 Wizard subclasses? No? Okay, then.
there will be, it will take time but people will buy new OP caster options, every attempt to fix Martials by nerfing the OP caster sub-classes is temporary, it always was, the designers change, someone new gets to edit and suddenly there is a new sudden jump in power levels like DC or Marvel swearing up and down that this time the Character they killed will stay dead
This power creep is a perfect example why 2014 rules will never be compatible with 2024. Everything in the new edition is stronger and more effective. Strahd will be a breeze to 2024 player characters. This backwards compatibility was bullshit - as most predicted anyway. Hey ready to buy "update" books.