A Discussion of Action Points ...

[Jeff Wilder]

(Background: I'm in three bi-weekly games, using three different action point systems. I've never yet found an action point system I've been very happy with, and I finally tried to figure out why. Below is an email I sent to the players and DMs in all three games. I'm not editing it because I'm in a hurry this morning, so keep the "emailed to players" context in mind. Comments very welcome. I plead for them, in fact.)

Mark and I discussed action points (or hero points, or whatever you want to call them) last night after Louis' game, and I expressed that I'm dissatisfied with every method we've tried to use them. After we went back and forth a few times, I figured out that what actions points do in Eberron isn't what they claim to do, and I'm in favor of what they claim to do. The three methods we use right now:

(1) Louis' Hero Points -- If you have a hero point, you can reroll one roll. The basic effect is "saving my ass." You *could* use it to attempt something really crazy and heroic, but having two chances at a "very slim chance" isn't much better than one. So this system is defensive. That said, it's still my favorite of the three, primarily because I think the way it works in practice is exactly what Louis intends. If the three factors of Offense, Defense, and encouraging "heroic" Action total 10, this system is Offense 2 / Defense 8 / Action 0.

(2) Jeff's Action Points from Eberron -- This allows you to see the result of a d20 roll you make, and *theoretically* before you know your DC, you can add the result of a d6. This system simply doesn't do what it claims to do, which is to encourage the kind of "pulp hero" feel that Eberron is supposed to have. (Think Tarzan, Doc Savage, certain types of comic books, et cetera.) Instead this system is a combination of offensive and defensive (which is fine), but it absolutely encourages crunching the numbers. We number crunch at the table constantly -- "lemme see, we know he has an AC of 24, and I got a 22; I don't want to waste Power Attack, so I'll use an action point" -- and there's no real way to stop it. It's built into the system. It doesn't encourage "heroic action," it increases "competence." This system is Offense 4 / Defense 5 / Action 1.

(3) Mark's Action Points from Unearthed Arcana -- These work exactly like Eberron's action points, with lots of extras. You can do things like spend an action point to regain a barbarian rage, or to recall a spell you just cast, or to take an extra move action, and several other options. On the one hand, the extra options are cool, but on the other hand they add a significant amount of power to characters, and still have the same drawbacks as the Eberron action points they're based on. The offensive side of use got a significant boost. (Just for the record, Age of Worms is a brutal campaign, so I don't think the increased power is a bad thing in that context.) This system is Offense 6 / Defense 3 / Action 1.

In these terms, what I'd like for Eberron is Offense 3 / Defense 3 / Action 4. Maybe even Offense 2 / Defense 3 / Action 5. I also, as an ancillary effect, would love to minimize the number-crunching.

As a first idea, what if action points were d10s, but you had to declare them *before* seeing the result of the d20? You'd choose to use an action point and roll it with your d20 roll. (One immediate effect would be to end the currently necessary but *extremely* annoying "final answer?" pause that slows things down.) But more basically, I think it would have these effects:

On offense, if you really need to hit, using an action point is definitely the thing to do. At y'all's level, the average action point benefit would be about +7, since you're rolling two d10 and taking the higher. But there's much less number-crunching. Using an action point would become much more about "urgency" than about how close you are to hitting the (known) AC of the guy you're swinging at, because before you roll the d20 you don't *know* how close you are.

Same thing on defense: if you just can't stomach the thought of failing that save or blowing that grapple check, a +7 is *huge*, but it's not a guarantee ... and again there's much less arithmetical metagaming possible.

The biggest benefit, as I see it, would be that it should do more to encourage heroic action. A +7 -- possibly +10 -- to skill checks like Jump, Climb, Tumble, and so on would do a lot more to encourage the use of those and other skills. A side benefit of spending the action point would be that the skill in question would be considered trained. A limitation would be that there has to be some element of danger involved to use an action point: you could use it for a Knowledge roll to identify a monster that's about to eat your friends, but you couldn't use an action point to *research* that monster safely back in town. No using them on Take 10 or Take 20 checks. (Those of you with special uses for action points would keep those as normal.)

One combination drawback and benefit would be that the DM would have to provide more description of what's occurring in the game, which IMO is something all three of use are very stingy about. IMO, it *should* be, "You feel some tingling magical effect trying to pry its way into your mind; make a Will save" or "a pit opens at your feet and fetid air washes up over you from the yawning darkness; make a Reflex save." Instead all three of us DMs tend to call for the save and wait for the result before we describe what's happening. But if players are going to commit action points in advance of the roll, they deserve to have an inkling of what's at stake. The upside is that players will definitely prompt for that kind of info ... the downside is that it will slow the game a little. IMO the downside (taking the time to make a description) is actually sorta the point, so it doesn't bother me.

One other consideration would be "how many action points?" My gut feeling is that keeping the same number of action points is too strong. But I think that gut feeling might be wrong. After all, theoretically the increase from d6s to d10s is balanced by having to commit in advance, so if X number of d6s is balanced, X number of d10s should be balanced. But I'm just throwing it out there.

For most of you reading this, I just thought you might be interested and might have some thoughts to share, whether about how accurately I've described the various systems, about what your preferred goal of an action point system would be, about my thoughts for a change, or about whatever else. I'm especially interested in Louis' and Marks' opinions, as the other DMs. Finally, I'd like my Eberron players to let me know if they'd be willing to playtest a change like the one I described above, for maybe two or three sessions. If it doesn't have the effects I expect, or if we just don't like it, we go back to the current system.

 

[ValhallaGH]

One action point variant I've really come to enjoy is the 'acing', 'exploding', or 'X again' action point. If you roll maximum on your action die, roll it again and add the results of the two roles. This is open-ended, allowing a single d6 to add +23 to a die roll (something I witnessed), resulting in some truly exceptional accomplishments.

As a first idea, what if action points were d10s, but you had to declare them *before* seeing the result of the d20? You'd choose to use an action point and roll it with your d20 roll.

It's a really interesting idea.
My only issue is that you'll need to provide more action points if you wan them to be used to do cool things. AP are a useful resource that only renews when the character levels, making them not something to be used lightly. Instead, giving out action points per session (a set number, or half level, or some combination) would encourage cool things to be done each session while still limiting the available power in a given session.


One version of Hero Points that I really like allows a single reroll, but if the reroll is less than 11, add ten to the result. So all Hero Point rerolls are between 11 and 20, resulting in some serious attempts at coolness.
Another option is to allow a 'surge', granting an extra standard action at the beginning or end of the turn, allowing for one more cool thing to be done that round (or for a character to both set-up and execute a cool thing). This does lead to boredom headaches if the players just use it to get extra attacks, but a simple houserule can fix that (and it's not a problem with some tables).

I hope some of those ideas and feedback are useful.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One action point variant I've really come to enjoy is the 'acing', 'exploding', or 'X again' action point. If you roll maximum on your action die, roll it again and add the results of the two roles. This is open-ended, allowing a single d6 to add +23 to a die roll (something I witnessed), resulting in some truly exceptional accomplishments.

It's a really interesting idea.
My only issue is that you'll need to provide more action points if you wan them to be used to do cool things. AP are a useful resource that only renews when the character levels, making them not something to be used lightly. Instead, giving out action points per session (a set number, or half level, or some combination) would encourage cool things to be done each session while still limiting the available power in a given session.


One version of Hero Points that I really like allows a single reroll, but if the reroll is less than 11, add ten to the result. So all Hero Point rerolls are between 11 and 20, resulting in some serious attempts at coolness.
Another option is to allow a 'surge', granting an extra standard action at the beginning or end of the turn, allowing for one more cool thing to be done that round (or for a character to both set-up and execute a cool thing). This does lead to boredom headaches if the players just use it to get extra attacks, but a simple houserule can fix that (and it's not a problem with some tables).

I hope some of those ideas and feedback are useful.

That sounds really "Torgy" and "Earthdawny"

The general dice was a d20. If you rolled a 10 or a 20, you rolled again and added the number. Furthermore, you could decide between passive and active defense - active defense meant you could roll a d20, otherwise you were effectively taking 10. But you always improved your result by 1+ (equivalent to ignoring results below 11)
Earthdawn let you roll a bunch of dice and add the result, and all dice rolled could explode.

Torg characters relied stronly on "possibilities" (in fact, being possibility related was the major difference between a Storm Knight and the common man.). They are a mix of hit points and action points - essentially, they combine what both basically represent - a measure of "narrative control"/"protection from nastiness" (I wasn't really hit - I actually tried this difficult thing a lot harder)
You could spend a possibility to add to a d20 roll. You could also spend a possiblity to reduce damage you took (basically the hit point feature). Attacks dealt "shock points" (too much of them, and you drop unconcious) and "wounds", as well as a "K" or a "O" (if you got a K and a O, you were - guess it - K.O.)
For each possibility spend, you could reduce a certain amount of shock points, wounds, Ks or Os taken. This allowed possibility rated characters to avoid even nasty hits with firearms (but sice you couldn't spend infinite amount of possibilities, there was still a limit on what you could take.) I really like this approach, and in contemplating about a homebrew system, I am seriously consider to use this again.

The 4E approach to action points seems to grant you extra actions (that was used in the DDXP playtest adventures). There apparently are also feats and later class abilities that are payed with action points, but I think there wasn't many good examples for it yet. (The only example I remember is an ability that allowed you to spend an action point to act in a surprise round, even if surprised). In a way, this can serve as a "do-over".

 

[ValhallaGH]

That sounds really "Torgy" and "Earthdawny"

That's interesting, since I've never played, nor even looked at, either rule set.
The acing (for me) came from the original Deadlands system, though I'm familiar with the Spycraft (exploding) and new World of Darkness (10 again) material as well.
The hero point stuff was borrowed from True 20 / Mutants & Masterminds.

The 4E stuff sounds interesting, though not (yet) original.

 

[coyote6]

As a first idea, what if action points were d10s, but you had to declare them *before* seeing the result of the d20? You'd choose to use an action point and roll it with your d20 roll. (One immediate effect would be to end the currently necessary but *extremely* annoying "final answer?" pause that slows things down.) But more basically, I think it would have these effects:

IME, this can lead to people feeling like they "wasted" action points, because they rolled high enough on the d20 to succeed anyways. You will then get people who do the same calculations as your option 2, except before the d20 roll ("Let's see, I have a good chance to make it; I don't want to waste an AP, so I'll skip it.").

I personally vastly prefer luck/hero/action point systems that let me use points after the roll; at least then I know whether my roll sucked or not.

 

[Victim]

One thing that you didn't consider is that the effects of AP on offense and defense can be quite uneven. A general rule seems to be that AP add to rolls. For physical attacks (and ray spells, etc), the attacker is the one rolling. AP can be quite useful offensively in this case. However, many spells and special abilities are based on saves; the defender is the one rolling.

So physical offense improves and special attack defense improves. But what are AP doing to improve a character's defense against conventional attack? Not a whole lot, apparently. Similarly, without a feat like Action Surge, AP aren't really helping spell casters attack.

How is +7 to a skill check equal to +7 to an attack or save? Your system still isn't changing much - it's still almost always going to be better not to have to make the Jump check so you still have your +7 for attacks or saves.

Action seems rather hard to pin down for a mechanical system, IMO. One idea might be making the power of the action point increase as the normal chance of success decreases. However, that seems like it'd get fairly complicated, and is still subject to number crunching (especially where penalties can be applied to one roll for bonuses later).

 

[Jeff Wilder]

One action point variant I've really come to enjoy is the 'acing', 'exploding', or 'X again' action point. If you roll maximum on your action die, roll it again and add the results of the two roles. This is open-ended, allowing a single d6 to add +23 to a die roll (something I witnessed), resulting in some truly exceptional accomplishments.

The only way I can see this being useful is if the results of skill checks are scaled by level of success, which (with a few exceptions), D&D doesn't really support.

For instance, let's say your character is trying to jump 35 feet with a running start. DC 35. He's got a Jump modifier of +7. Can he make it with an exploding AP? Sure. But is he really encouraged to try? (On the other hand, if he's in a competition for longest jump, it'd be a good time to use the AP.)

Basically, I'm not so much interested in characters being able to get "astronomically high, occasionally," I'm more interested in allowing them to get "heroicallly high, more reliably."

Thanks very much for the comments, and keep 'em coming. And everyone else, too. The observation about maybe making AP a perishable per-session resource was especially helpful.

 

[DogBackward]

I'm about to implement two AP ideas soon that I hope will go over well, and I have the same reservations as you. I want heroic action, not "I add +3 to my attack roll".

First, you get 3 plus 1/2 level in AP per level, and you refresh 1 AP each session.

Anyway, AP are rerolls. You can spend an AP after the fact to reroll the die, taking the new result no matter what, or you can spend an AP before the fact to roll twice, taking the higher result. So it's either an "I REALLY want to do this" or a "Holy crap, I REALLY don't wanna screw up this bad".

Second, I'm allowing AP to be spent to improve skill checks. Note that these only apply to the classic "heroic action" type things, like leaping off of walls and swinging from chandeliers and such.

1. You may "take 20" without increasing the time, if you declare before you roll.
2. You may "take 15" without increasing the time, if you declare after you roll.

I'll try and let you guys know how it works out when I get to try it.

 

[Pagan priest]

I'm about to implement two AP ideas soon that I hope will go over well, and I have the same reservations as you. I want heroic action, not "I add +3 to my attack roll".

First, you get 3 plus 1/2 level in AP per level, and you refresh 1 AP each session.

Anyway, AP are rerolls. You can spend an AP after the fact to reroll the die, taking the new result no matter what, or you can spend an AP before the fact to roll twice, taking the higher result. So it's either an "I REALLY want to do this" or a "Holy crap, I REALLY don't wanna screw up this bad".

Second, I'm allowing AP to be spent to improve skill checks. Note that these only apply to the classic "heroic action" type things, like leaping off of walls and swinging from chandeliers and such.

1. You may "take 20" without increasing the time, if you declare before you roll.
2. You may "take 15" without increasing the time, if you declare after you roll.

I'll try and let you guys know how it works out when I get to try it.

I'm interested in how this works out.

 

[Nifft]

Consider breaking from Action Points entirely, and going with Exalted's Stunt system.

If the player describes something cool: +1d6.

If the player describes something really cool: +2d6.

If the player describes something ZOMG I HAD A COW cool: +3d6.

Coolness determined by consensus among other players.

Cheers, -- N