Ever since I discovered Auspicious Lineage and Born Under a Bad Sign, I find it almost impossible to justify having any other background for my character. Given that, at the very least, it equals a free Toughness feat and at the most, two Toughness feats, it's just way too good not to take.
I've been considering this carefully a lot lately and I feel that there are two problems with this scenario.
The first is that it's obviously out of scale with other background benefits. 5 to 10 extra hit points at 1st-level is way above any other benefit that I've seen. Every other benefit is arguably balanced with the rest of the benefits. Even the seemingly more powerful ones such as four death saves, or bonus initiative that stacks with other bonuses or bonuses to attack, can arguably roughly equate to bonuses to skills.
Bonuses to skills should not be underestimated. Consider that stacking racial and background benefits with a +5 ability modifier can seriously screw with DC's. You can, for instance, have a 1st-level character with a Passive Perception of 24. And even when not stacked, it can provide an otherwise off class/race/class skill with enough of a bump to bring it in line with medium DC's, adding an entire skill to a character's list of reasonable options.
The second, is that it's not necessarily a bad thing having a freebie bonus to hit points, which makes it hard to justify getting rid of them. I think the argument presented by 4e's basic system premise that 1st-level should be less squishy, isn't necessarily carried through to it's full conclusion by the standard rules.
In other words, I think having those extra hit points and not basing hit points off of Con at all, is a good thing, both from a balance perspective and from a game enjoyment perspective. Let's face it, 4e can be deadly and anyone who argues otherwise has either not played very much, or hasn't played with many unforgiving DM's.
I honestly feel that those 5 to 10 extra hit points put the characters where they should be at 1st-level, so taking away the background benefits that provide these extra hit points is a bad idea.
Another problem which crops up is that for those who don't take the background benefit that provides these extra hit points, there is a significant disparity between characters. I, for instance, play a sorcerer who has more hit points than our party's defender.
So, to solve all these problems, I propose a house rule where all characters start at 1st-level with class + 20 hit points. That way every character is on the same scale and combats become a lot less swingy since everyone can cop an extra hit or two before going down and heal a bit more in the bargain.
What do you think?
I've been considering this carefully a lot lately and I feel that there are two problems with this scenario.
The first is that it's obviously out of scale with other background benefits. 5 to 10 extra hit points at 1st-level is way above any other benefit that I've seen. Every other benefit is arguably balanced with the rest of the benefits. Even the seemingly more powerful ones such as four death saves, or bonus initiative that stacks with other bonuses or bonuses to attack, can arguably roughly equate to bonuses to skills.
Bonuses to skills should not be underestimated. Consider that stacking racial and background benefits with a +5 ability modifier can seriously screw with DC's. You can, for instance, have a 1st-level character with a Passive Perception of 24. And even when not stacked, it can provide an otherwise off class/race/class skill with enough of a bump to bring it in line with medium DC's, adding an entire skill to a character's list of reasonable options.
The second, is that it's not necessarily a bad thing having a freebie bonus to hit points, which makes it hard to justify getting rid of them. I think the argument presented by 4e's basic system premise that 1st-level should be less squishy, isn't necessarily carried through to it's full conclusion by the standard rules.
In other words, I think having those extra hit points and not basing hit points off of Con at all, is a good thing, both from a balance perspective and from a game enjoyment perspective. Let's face it, 4e can be deadly and anyone who argues otherwise has either not played very much, or hasn't played with many unforgiving DM's.
I honestly feel that those 5 to 10 extra hit points put the characters where they should be at 1st-level, so taking away the background benefits that provide these extra hit points is a bad idea.
Another problem which crops up is that for those who don't take the background benefit that provides these extra hit points, there is a significant disparity between characters. I, for instance, play a sorcerer who has more hit points than our party's defender.
So, to solve all these problems, I propose a house rule where all characters start at 1st-level with class + 20 hit points. That way every character is on the same scale and combats become a lot less swingy since everyone can cop an extra hit or two before going down and heal a bit more in the bargain.
What do you think?
Last edited:
