Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5495241" data-attributes="member: 78116">Yes it would, which would make them interesting and people would want to choose them as a front line character. As it is, you've got a few very hard levels to survive and then the penalty doesn't do anything. +2 is only significant very early on as well, but at least it is therefore a bonus and adds to the race. +2 to surge value while non-bloodied doesn't do a lot either after a few races, but it is there and it's a neat flavorful feature. It does the EXACT same thing as the penalty, has the EXACT same lifespan where it makes a big difference and it's main difference is it fits with 4Es actual design goals (or what they should have remained).Which is really the entire point.For a while at low levels yes, but like the penalty it is insignificant. The difference is that it doesn't make surviving low levels harder - just encourages you to heal early. Noting that the penalty does the exact same thing, but only because you are put on the back foot massively if you don't. A key difference.This is the worst advice ever, when a simple level 4 skirmisher could jump 10 squares and then leap on you (moving a further 6 squares if it had to), knock you prone and probably dealing a good chunk of damage. When his buddies jump in for some CA fun, you're now bloodied and there was jack you could do about it. What if you're the parties defender? You get crit by a brute? Oh there you go bloodied. Artillery shoots the nonsense out of you? Bloodied. A chaos shard hits you with its movement penalty power, you get immobilized? Bloodied. All of these are things that every day low level monsters do. This sort of statement just doesn't consider the reality that 4E monsters have better powers and do more damage (even in heroic). Most characters in a combat, except people who stand well well away cannot avoid getting reliably bloodied. For many characters, like front line strikers, defenders and similar this advice is just impractical. Rather like implying that to avoid cars when crossing the street you should not touch the ground. Assuming you bloody the enemy - something that a ranger with twin strike standing in the back could do easily. But again, aren't we trying to ensure races aren't pigeonholed? Of course the point again is that the disadvantage is pointless after enough HP is acquired. A +2 would be a really solid benefit and really open them up for defenders, while not being overpowered in the least after only a few levels. Not to mention requires extremely proactive healing to take advantage of in the first place.4E should do away with dumb, pointless disadvantages.These are buffers - they shouldn't be making up for a disadvantage and should be bonuses. I think this logic is really invalid and I see absolutely zero merit whatsoever in your argument. Really, I don't see any need for any of these disadvantages whatsoever. Racial negatives are not a good thing, they don't help differentiate a race at all and they add zero to the game. All they do is penalize players and pigeonhole these races. Albeit as I keep stressing, this disadvantage has about 4-5 levels of life before it starts to become insignificant. But when it is significant it really heavily penalizes a party whose defender or front line striker made the foolish mistake of picking this race. That's just poor design.</blockquote>

Verification