Shadow Races up!!!

[Saeviomagy]

Except that would be a more significant advantage. If -2 when bloodied is potentially 2 surges, then obviously +2 when not bloodied would be pretty much the same thing

Not really - if you're not bloodied when you start spending surges, then the +2 will be wasted if you spend 2 surges. It's an interesting little benefit, but it's going to be incredibly difficult to hover in the range of bloodied to bloodied+surge-2 hitpoints to get the most benefit out of it. Also take a peek at dragonborn, whom I believe get +con to surge value all the time.

The -2 to surges means that when you most need your surges, you're in real trouble, and it's sort of self reinforcing: you have to spend surges to get rid of the penalty.

 

[Kingreaper]

What advantages does the shade have again?

I said intended for a reason

 

[Aegeri]

The comparison to Dragonborn is apt actually.

Vryloka get +2 Charisma, Strength or Dex
Dragonborn get +2 Charisma, Constitution or Strength

Vryloka get speed 7 - always very nice
Dragonborn are normal speed.

Vryloka get low-light vision - I regard this as kind of useful actually (others regard it as useless flavor though, due to how common sunrods are. But then again a sunrod to me is "Fresh meat here, COME AND EAT").
Dragonborn have no special vision

Vryloka get two good skill bonuses - definitely an advantage here!
Dragonborn get two okayish skill bonuses (depending on your DM)

Then we get into racial features.

Vryloka get a ridiculously dumb -2 penalty to surge value. This pretty much undoes most of their advantages in itself.
Dragonborn get a ridiculously awesome +con bonus to surge value. All the time.

Vryloka get a flavor bonus to bluff checks to pretend to be human
Dragonborn don't really need or get an equivalent

Vryloka gain necrotic resistance - always neat
Dragonborn gain a flat +1 bonus to attack rolls while bloodied (excellent).

Vryloka do gain a benefit to be considered living or undead, but this is a very niche thing and won't be of benefit very often (if at all). They can also power swap utility powers, but they aren't gaining a benefit as they still have to pay the same slot for those utility powers.

The Vryloka has a good racial power and so does the Dragonborn (even when you consider the Vryloka has to bloody an enemy to get use out of it).

But overall what features above are giving the Vryloka something that warrants the -2 penalty? I cannot see a single feature there that isn't matched (or is just pure flavor/fluff with little mechanical benefit really) or bettered by something the Dragonborn gets? They share similar stats, particularly notable in being the only two strength/charisma races (IIRC). Now if the Vryloka had the situational +2 bonus to surges when non-bloodied, that would be an interesting advantage and they still wouldn't look anywhere more powerful than the Dragonborn above.

 

[Dice4Hire]

[sarcasm]Oh, I absolutely agree. No penalties, ever for anyone is the most fun. Nt for flavor, not for god, not for country [/sarcasm]

[MENTION=78116]Aegeri[/MENTION] I think you are overreacting more than a bit. You admit it is a minor disadvantage, so why attack another poster so harshly? Not needed at all.

I, for myself, think giving small penalties makes races better, and overall it is one of my gripes with 4E and the mentality of a lot of players. Always-useful, powerful options are cool, and fun, but small debits on the other side make things more unique. We already have enough all plus races (Elf, Human, Eladrin, etc etc etc) so having a few with a bit of a drawback is refreshing.

Yes, if you play a shade controller with a 10 con, that surge is gonna really be noticed. However if you play the same controller with a 14 con, not so much. A defender with a 16 con will be hardly noticeable at all.

Same for the minor -2 to healing. Yes, it can be nasty at 1st level, but then again any healing that is only a surge is subpar. Soon it will not matter, and will encourage the player to plan around the advantage, or try to mitigate it.

Mitigating weaknesses can be fun.

 

[Aegeri]

[sarcasm]Oh, I absolutely agree. No penalties, ever for anyone is the most fun. Nt for flavor, not for god, not for country [/sarcasm]

Although an extremely poor attempt at sarcasm, the point within that I feel is more legitimate than anyone who thinks racial penalties should be bought back. Frankly it is my view that racial penalties are immensely poor design and add absolutely nothing to the game. There are a wide variety of races in 4E as it is and many of them do pretty well making their own flavor, without the requirement to have any racial penalties whatsoever.

Additionally, nobody has given me any decent argument why these add to the "fun" of these races whatsoever. I mean is it fun to be pigeonholed into certain playstyles and classes? Because I found when 4E made it relatively possible for most things to play anything the game was far more fun - simply more diverse.

I, for myself, think giving small penalties makes races better

It really doesn't and again, the disadvantage is crippling at first and irrelevant later.

Always-useful, powerful options are cool, and fun, but small debits on the other side make things more unique.

Absolute, 100% pure nonsense. I can't see how "Oh this race penalizes me into playing a certain way or I'm going to be a massive drain/ineffective" is good design.

Yes, if you play a shade controller with a 10 con, that surge is gonna really be noticed. However if you play the same controller with a 14 con, not so much.

In other words, you're using points that for anyone else would be a bonus into playing catch up for a non-required disadvantage.

This argument is not convincing to me in the least this is good design or desirable whatsoever.

A defender with a 16 con will be hardly noticeable at all.

Actually it will be, because a surge is a lot of HP and each surge you 'lose' is actually a fair chunk - especially by epic tier.

Once again with monster damage - especially at epic - the way it is defenders can drain all their surges. It happens now and that's when you think to yourself "It would be nice to have another 1/4 HP there". That's literally what a surge is btw. When you have say, 160ish HP, 40 HP is nothing to scoff at that you're missing.

Yes, it can be nasty at 1st level, but then again any healing that is only a surge is subpar. Soon it will not matter, and will encourage the player to plan around the advantage, or try to mitigate it.

The first point ignores that some leaders - like the shaman - don't boost their healing on the first target (the shaman gives 1d6 surgeless healing to a target adjacent to the spirit companion). Likewise the ardent in my game has 2 extra heals per encounter that are only a single surge (plus his ardent healing, which is healing + 1d6). Sometimes in a tough encounter your leader has to heal you with a surge. It's not the leaders fault you've picked a race with a really crippling disadvantage in such a scenario.

Edit: Also if you were being fair to my argument, you should have noted above I assumed a bonus to the healing surge when working out the number of surges they would need to use. Even with healing with a bonus, the bonus is just making up the difference and no longer a bonus. If there is one thing I will be consistent about in my arguments, is that bonuses should be bonuses. Not barely making up for a disadvantage.

Mitigating weaknesses can be fun.

Or not required in the first place. Having to play catch up, such as taking durable or the feat that adds to your surge value is called a feat tax. That's also the other point that obliterates your entire argument, a single feat always removes these disadvantages. The problem is such a feat tax shouldn't be required in the first place: Neither race gains a thing from having these disadvantages. One is chronically underpowered regardless of the surge penalty, so it's more adding insult to injury.

 

[gyor]

Actual the cavalier/paladin is the defender lest weakened by these penalties. In the case of the Shade the lost surge brings you down to fighter level. In the Vryloka's case the cavalier of valor gets +2 to surge value at level one so the penalty brings you down to normal Paladin levels.

Of course you could take durablity and/or toughness to make up the difference too. Vryloka and Shade vampires of course don't have to worry about this as in the Vryloka's case if you get bloodied your relying on your regen until after the battle at which point hopefully you'll have one surge too many and end up at full hp, where as the Shades penalty actual makes it easier to get the full heal effect, plus it gets regen as well.

Blackguards, Barbarians and Slayers have way more hitpoints then other strikers and in the Blackguards case should have wicked armour/protection.

 

[Mengu]

Mitigating weaknesses can be fun.

Story based weaknesses are fun to mitigate/overcome. Mechanical weaknesses that you have to overcome, when you had options that didn't give you a weakness, are, I would say, annoying.

Designwise, mechanics that support/enhance flavor are a good thing for the game. It's just poor implementation in this case. Like suggested earlier, make it a bonus while not bloodied, instead of a penalty while bloodied, and it emphasizes a strength. Still supports the fluff, while obeying solid design goals.

A penalty on a race also gets wild looks from the players. If I'm the leader, I'm going to take one look at the Vryloka, and hope he drops dead in the first encounter. I don't want to mess with that handicap. It's not even my handicap to mess with. And yet as leader, I'll be expected to deal with it. He's always going to be begging for freebie hit points from my spirit companion while he's bloodied, or he's going to beg me to switch to Bard so he can get some extra hit points during a short rest, or wrinkle his nose at me for playing a Runepriest that doesn't provide bonus healing. It's just unnecessary limitations, and poor design.

And reading the fluff, there isn't anything that says the Vryloka need to suffer some penalty while bloodied. Their pact gives them vitality, so the temp hit points when you bloody or kill a foe makes perfect sense (almost like a warlock pact), but the race that was given vitality suffers a -2 to healing surge value? Not even sure if it ties in right with the fluff.

If you must give them a penalty because they are a shadow race, give them something like "Hold of the Red Witch: During an extended rest your dreams are occupied by the Red Witch, you suffer a -5 additional penalty to perception checks while taking an extended rest." There, you have a penalty, it's fluffy, and it might even come into play once in a while. You could build a story off of it. And your healer won't be frustrated with your handicap. You just might suffer through a surprise round without actions once in a blue moon.

 

[boar]

The comparison to Dragonborn is indeed apt. My one point of disagreement is that Dragonborn get an incredibly good racial power, whereas the Vryloka's power is complete junk.

The thing is, +2 to attack, shift 7, and temp hp are all nice. But racial powers set a high bar. Rerolling an attack once per encounter isn't just "nice," it's amazing. Teleporting 5 squares isn't just "kinda good," it's amazing. I wouldn't put dragon breath in the same category as those powers, but it's incredibly good.

+2 to hit, triggered on an attack, so it only applies once? Not so much. Temp HP little better than the Half-orc's passive benefit? Not so much. The equivalent of Tumble, a level 2 rogue utility, except that it requires you to hit, meaning you were already in position to make the attack? Not so much!!

"Bloody or drop an enemy" is a severe restriction, AND the bonuses are nowhere near the power level of most racial powers. Follow a Dragonborn for 10 levels, and note how useful that breath attack is; consider how the battle would have gone if the character had the Vryloka power instead. I think you'll find it makes a critical difference.

If the power were instead a minor action, now we'd be talking. Then it would almost justify the racial penalty. Almost.

 

[Almacov]

Okay, there's an obvious divide in perspective here.
Here's a thought: Perhaps both opinions are equally valid, and people should just play what they want to play.

I'm glad that game elements with specific disadvantages are there for people who want them.
I'm also glad that noone runs around pointing guns at the heads of people who don't want to use them, forcing them to play characters of dreaded sub-optimal nature, in a room full of wolves who growl "YOU ARE THE OMEGA. YOU ARE THE OMEGA. NOOB! NOOB! NOOB!".

'Cause that would suck. If you're in a group where that happens... I'm sure some of my fellow forum-goers would join me in prayer for you.

EDIT: This was mostly in reply to some of the more... passionate, declarations earlier in the thread.

 

[Aegeri]

I noticed in the latest ampersand there are weapons that ignore necrotic resistance - plus they are common and low level. Hopefully there is a similar implement for spellcasters.

Actual the cavalier/paladin is the defender lest weakened by these penalties. In the case of the Shade the lost surge brings you down to fighter level. In the Vryloka's case the cavalier of valor gets +2 to surge value at level one so the penalty brings you down to normal Paladin levels.

Sacrificing something that's supposed to be a bonus is a poor trade and doesn't make these races any better. The cavalier gets an extra surge to assist with his secondary role of being a leader, which is also helped by their bonuses to surges that they get as well. On the other hand a Vryloka with the +2 bonus to surges when not bloodied houserule I am going to use gets far more out and is more interesting to play. You're not just "A Cavalier who is worse", you're now improving a strength that you should have in the first place.

Saying you can remove a key class feature to make up for the fact your race is horrible is not a really great argument - nor does it make you on par because you've just sacrificed key features of your class.