Background benefits?

[Herschel]

I'm of the opinion that the +hp backgrounds are too powerful, moreso because they are active at *level 1*.

Worst case scenario: A rogue/ranger gaining +10 hp at the first level (starting with 20 Dex is not that uncommon for these classes) is not balanced. Any class that keys off Int or Dex as their primary attack stat not only gains significant AC bonuses, but also hitpoints. Granted, not every class can do this, but getting +hp off your primary stat that is already increasing:
1.) Your chance to hit
2.) Your damage
3.) Your AC
is a joke.

Conversely, not allowing them gimps Assault Swordmages, Tempest Fighters (and many fighters in general), Thaneborn Barbarians, Paladins and Avengers (and often Warlords) in to less flexible and potentially much poorer choices than others of their role.

And the Con-based classes can get all of it out of Con.

 

[Rathyr]

All of those classes gain benefits by not having Con as their secondary stat (not doubling stacking a NAD and a init bonus for Fighters, plus less armour check penalties and faster if you are going the Light Armour route. I could go on with the others, but you get the idea). Its not like they become worthless because of a different strength.

Having less Con means you have gained something in a different area. Con isn't exactly applied to a lot of skills either, so by opting for this background, you gain bonuses to skills you wouldn't have if you had taken Con. Essentially, you are getting the best of both worlds.

You make a choice about healing surges and life when you select any stat besides Con as your secondary or primary. This is the same for any stat. You shouldn't be able to bypass a major component of your race/class/build choices with a *background*. Not having an unfair advantage at level 1 at doesn't make you gimp, just balanced.

Opportunity costs exists.

 

[Herschel]

And backgrounds are a cost. They are an option given and can do many things. You choose the HP benefit at first level over other benefits, some tremendous, some not as good. It depends on the character and the role and the campaign. As a Wizard, I would probably never take the background, for example, even though I may dump Con. In most party setups, I would get better benefit from another background.

 

[MrMyth]

Conversely, not allowing them gimps Assault Swordmages, Tempest Fighters (and many fighters in general), Thaneborn Barbarians, Paladins and Avengers (and often Warlords) in to less flexible and potentially much poorer choices than others of their role.

I disagree. No one is 'gimped' by starting with the hitpoints that the game intends them to start with.

I don't think it is a gamebreaker, but it is clearly several levels of power above most other backgrounds, and problematic in being such a 'default' choice for any class that isn't con-based.

 

[Rathyr]

I guess choosing between one broken background and another would present a hard choice for some players...

I guess we simply have FAR different benchmarks for what the appropriate power level is for a background. As stated by many others in the thread, I view the PHB2 backgrounds as the "balanced" ones. Windrise Ports, +hp, resistances, rerolling checks etc. fall under the "Thanks for the free feat" category in my books. Never mind the fact that many of these "backgrounds" come from different worlds and campaigns (reflavouring isn't too hard, but still).

Anyways, I dont think players don't need a free feat at level one (moreso if you are toss them expertise/defences at appropriate levels). If they want more hitpoints, they should have to pay for it, and the background slot isn't the place to do it. If they want a extra feat, play as a human.

This background is an example of players wanting to do everything on their characters. "I want to be good at skills, high AC, accurate, good damage and have high life!". You shouldn't get the option to pick everything as your strengths.

No one thinks a Rageborn Barb with HAE is balanced for exactly that reason. Too much stuff keying off one stat, and then you add Barb agility for completely over the top AC. Pretty much the only saving grace of that is the two crappy NADS, but thats a conversation for another day...

 

[Herschel]

Yes, we do. I abhor whining about "broken" or "terrible" powers when they simply aren't even though they may be a better choice than others in certain cases. The game is balanced with those background feats. If you don't want to allow them, then that's at your table, but declaring them "broken" is simply ignorant.

 

[Miphon]

Oddly enough, the one player in my game who chose the Auspicious Birth background wanted it for the flavour and suggested that I should probably downgrade the mechanical benefit given his rogue had a Dex of 20 & a Con of 10 and it felt a bit cheesy to him.

So I found myself in the weird position as a DM of trying to convince an otherwise min-maxing player that the benefits of this background weren't too over the top. Yes it's a nice benefit, but he's definitely noticed the lack of healing surges and poor fort defence as a result of his low Con score.

 

[Rathyr]

Yes, we do. I abhor whining about "broken" or "terrible" powers when they simply aren't even though they may be a better choice than others in certain cases. The game is balanced with those background feats. If you don't want to allow them, then that's at your table, but declaring them "broken" is simply ignorant.

And I abhor desperate rationalizations about shaky game mechanics. Backgrounds are an *optional* game mechanic, the game is not balanced around them. If the game needed each class to multiclass 3 times in order to be balanced, I wouldn't be playing it.

Declaring something "balanced" is no more ignorant than declaring it "broken". We are comparing opinions here, not stating universal laws. I'm sure there are people out there that think applying Wisdom mod to all damage, all the time is a balanced paragon feature. If I call that broken, I'm ignorant?

Sign me up.

Just because its in the rules and someone thinks its "balanced" does not exclude them from being ignorant (or that they are right).

 

[Umbran]

Ladies and gents,

Do you remember The Rules?

Rule #1: "Keep it civil: Don't engage in personal attacks, name-calling, or blanket generalizations in your discussions. "

If you wish to continue this discussion, show respect for the other people, even if you disagree with them.

Thanks much.

 

[Flipguarder]

Anyone considered the idea that auspicious birth and the like aren't necessarily balanced OR broken?

1. They don't break the game in that the game is inherently less fun because they exist.

2. They are not balanced in that they are clearly more powerful then the some other backgrounds.

I don't think that anyone in this thread will disagree with either of these points. The question at hand is, is it "right" to allow them, given point 2.

My pov is that as a DM you can bring backgrounds in to bring unintended effects (both good and bad) based on their backgrounds.

Auspicious birth: People always trying to get the PC to do things for them.

Born under a bad sign: They have unrealistically unilaterally bad luck.

Wandering duelist: They end up finding people who want to fight them one-on-one.

Vengeful Rival: *GASP* its the vengeful rival.