Ditch Action Points for Fate Points?

mudlock · Jul 12, 2011

In a recent thread (can't remember which one) someone mentioned adding Fate Points to D&D (http://www.faterpg.com/dl/FATE2fe.pdf)

That got me thinking: What if, instead of just ADDING Fate Points, you instead REPLACE Action Points with Fate Points? Keep the "once per encounter, use one to take an extra action" bit, but use the Fate rules for gaining them and for spending them on other stuff.

One "downside" I can see is that characters will be much more likely to use a Fate Point to take an extra action every combat (instead of averaging slightly-more than every-other combat) since they start with more of them.

Do you see any other potential complications?

DracoSuave · Jul 12, 2011

mudlock said:
Do you see any other potential complications?

Almost every paragon path in the game

mudlock · Jul 12, 2011

DracoSuave said:
Almost every paragon path in the game

That's a bit of a flippant response...

But those all already key off your "once per encounter" use and let you do X instead of take an extra action. I don't, in general, see a problem there; those all already handle, for instance, having multiple APs available.

Powers that give you an AP that you can use in that encounter, aren't a problem either, for the same reason.

Are there any specific paragon paths that you see having problems though?

DracoSuave · Jul 12, 2011

mudlock said:
That's a bit of a flippant response...

But those all already key off your "once per encounter" use and let you do X instead of take an extra action. I don't, in general, see a problem there; those all already handle, for instance, having multiple APs available.

Most of them actually give you a bonus when you use an AP for something else. Those abilities are usually not worth concidering, but if you get a lot more AP, then you re-evaluate them. I'm not saying it's broken, I'm saying it's worth looking at.

Powers that give you an AP that you can use in that encounter, aren't a problem either, for the same reason.

Are there any specific paragon paths that you see having problems though?

You asked for potential complications. Paragon Paths are the first one that come to mind.

As well, abilities that allow APs to be redistributed can also get out of hand, if you have a lot more APs to distribute. I can't think of specific combos off the top of my head, but I'm certain there's ways to break this in half.

But, I don't see it as being a problem in most parties.

Truename · Jul 12, 2011

mudlock said:
That got me thinking: What if, instead of just ADDING Fate Points, you instead REPLACE Action Points with Fate Points? Keep the "once per encounter, use one to take an extra action" bit, but use the Fate rules for gaining them and for spending them on other stuff.

One "downside" I can see is that characters will be much more likely to use a Fate Point to take an extra action every combat (instead of averaging slightly-more than every-other combat) since they start with more of them.

We did exactly this for over a year in my campaign. The problem we had was that the value of the fate points as action points was so much higher than the value of the fate points as fate points, they were only rarely used in the fate point way.

We ended up changing them to be gained for any great roleplaying moments (player nominated, aiming for about one per player per session), and spendable for non-combat purposes only.

wlmartin · Jul 12, 2011

I do think that Action Points are cool, its like an Extra Life in Super Mario... that being said I think that they are too much of a bolt-on and don't feel natural. The whole healing surges thing was a smart idea as it seems more natural that healing comes from inside the player rather than the Cleric being a fountain of healing potions.

Action points don't feel as natural. It feels almost like the Devs speced the mechanics of the game out and found some kind of remainder that made Players a lot less balanced than monsters and to redress the balance they created Action Points. I could be completely off base but it just doesn't feel natural.

If my DM announced a House Rule that made the use of Action Points a lot more realistic then I would be up for that. For example one idea I had was

Make Action Points something the character specializes in and this is chosen before every adventure (or possibly every extended rest). The Specialization means that the character chooses an Encounter Power and he can use this Encounter Power twice per Encounter.

This is often better than an extra action since it means that you can re-use a strong Encounter Power twice although you no longer have the ability to act twice in one of your turns any more.

Either way, I am 100% for something to pimp Action Points

delericho · Jul 12, 2011

Personally, I feel that Action Points are something that 4e got broadly correct. They're simple, they're pretty obvious (spend an Action Point to get an extra action...), and they work.

The only thing I would probably do differently would be to simply give one AP every encounter, in a "use it or lose it" model.

I don't think Fate Points are necessarily a poor addition to the game (although I personally wouldn't use them). However, I wouldn't consider replacing Action Points with Fate Points - as far as I can see they are different solutions to different problems, and other than both having 'point' in the title, they don't really have anything to do with one another.

So, adding Fate Points probably isn't a bad idea. Removing Action Points probably isn't a bad idea. Doing both is also probably not a bad idea. But I probably wouldn't describe that as in any way "replacing" one with the other.

Crazy Jerome · Jul 12, 2011

I think action points, or any variation on them (hero points, fate points, etc.) are one of those things were you really have to consider the particular players involved. The usual suggestions never seem to work at our table.

What does work for us is having them accumulate as a resource and letting players use as many as they want, whenever they want. But ... if the total accumulated gets too high, the players don't get new ones. We formalized this in an Arcana Evolved campaign, where each player could have a total of 1, +1 for every 4 levels. There was a feat to bump that up to 2, +1 for eveyr 3 levels. But in our current 4E campaign, I just hand them out at key moments, and the players know that if they don't use them, I'll stop handing them out.

I have no reason to believe that the RAW and some of the standard variants don't work for a lot of people, but it turns our table into a bunch of turtles for some reason.

Mengu · Jul 12, 2011

delericho said:
Personally, I feel that Action Points are something that 4e got broadly correct. They're simple, they're pretty obvious (spend an Action Point to get an extra action...), and they work.

I mostly agree.

My only problem with action points is for a party of classes that can already do "a lot" with a standard action, all spending action points in the same round. This turns out to be a massively effective round for PC's exasperated by high initiatives that monsters can't reach, if used in the first round.

I would like to see an "action point interrupt" or similar mechanic on some monsters. A creature with an action point may have an ability such as: when an enemy uses an action point the creature may use an action point to take a standard action as an immediate interrupt.

Without some monster retaliation, an entire party action pointing, can reduce even a difficult encounter down to a safe encounter, with little thought. I don't mind a striker or two action pointing to take out a creature fast, or a controller establishing dominance over a grouping of enemies, but when it all happens at once, the DM's job of providing a challenging encounter can be hard, particularly for DM's using published material. In a home game, I have no problem staggering enemy waves and the like to avoid the situation when I want to, but not all DM's are as experienced or as inclined to change published material. When I'm a player, and my party destroys what's supposed to be a hard encounter in one or two rounds because we saved our action points and dailies for the hard encounter, the encounter feels anticlimactic, I feel a bit underchallenged, and I feel bad for the DM who is left scratching his head.

Crazy Jerome · Jul 12, 2011

Mengu said:
My only problem with action points is for a party of classes that can already do "a lot" with a standard action, all spending action points in the same round. This turns out to be a massively effective round for PC's exasperated by high initiatives that monsters can't reach, if used in the first round.

I've considered, but haven't tried: Roll a 1 on an attack; get an action point; usable any time for the rest of the combat.

I like the implied pacing, but not liking the "reset" nature of the RAW has persuaded me not to try it.