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: 5495297" data-attributes="member: 78116">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.It really doesn't and again, the disadvantage is crippling at first and irrelevant later.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. 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.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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification