Core materials: Action Points and Insider

[FickleGM]

I like Action Points, but I do hope that their implementation in 4e is handled properly.

What I like about Action Points (or similar mechanics):

- Avoid death. I like that you can stabilize or otherwise avoid death with a limited resource.

- Reroll/Add to roll. I like the ability to reroll a bad roll, but it only gives you a chance to roll better. I like the ability to add to your roll, so that you can exceed your normal potential, but it doesn't do much to save you from a bad roll. I don't know which one I would prefer...

- Non-arbitrary rewarding of Action Points. I don't mind starting each session by giving my players 3 Action Points (or some other number) and saying, that's all you get. I also don't mind the SWSE style where you get so many at any given level and they reset when you gain a new level.

What I don't like:

- Standard options tied to Action Points. Action Points should allow you to do extra, not be required to used standard options. I don't like how SWSE uses Force Points to fuel certain abilities.

- I don't like when Action Points are used to unlock a whole bunch of other stuff. Action Points, as per Unearthed Arcana, do too much, in my opinion. You can boost feats, you can emulate feats, you can take extra actions, etc. True20 Conviction goes even further. It's unnecessary added complexity.

- I don't like Action Point replenishing systems that require GM judgment and/or player contrivance. In True20, if you play your Virtue or Vice in a certain way (read, contrived way to negatively impact the character, but not too much), the GM may allow you to regain an Action Point. There other methods, as well, but outside of one-shots and convention-games, I am not too fond of them.


I hope that Action Points will:

A) Help a character avoid death, but not avoid injury or danger.

B) Help a character recover from a lousy roll, either by rerolling or adding to a roll.

C) Be replenished in a non-abritrary method, preferably at a slow pace.

That's it...

 

[Mercule]

First, where did this information come from? I saw mention of a podcast, but am clueless.

Myself, I love action points and doubt I'd ever again run a 3x game w/o them. My reasoning isn't to shield the players from their own stupidity or bad luck, but from mine.

Most GMs have been in a position where they have thrown together an encounter, puzzle, etc. that should be really easy, but the players just aren't getting it and it's beating their tails. Any GM who claims otherwise would be suspect. Odds are good that, rather than me having five otherwise smart people at my table who all get stupid simultaneously, I'm the one who got stupid.

Sometimes I misjudge the clues I give or the challenge presented to a party. Sometimes I forget or misapply a rule. It's not like I'm doing more than one thing at a time, as GM, right? If I make something too easy, then the players get a bye, essentially. Sure, it's not as fun as getting just the right balance, but try again next time. On the other hand, if I make something too hard, it can cost a player their character in pretty short order. That sucks, to put it mildly.

Action points are the players' shield against me screwing up. APs give them enough time to realize things are going badly and bail or survive that one extra round they need for the encounter to play out as I expected.

IME, action points aren't abused. They're only pulled out when the PCs really need that extra "oomph" one way or another. They also haven't prevented some pretty freakish things from happening, like all be one PC being charmed by a harpy. They just make corner cases less likely.

I'm tickled that the idea of action points is, apparently, being included in the 4E PHB. Hopefully, it's a good implementation. If not, don't use it. I didn't have any problems excising the paladin and monk from the 3.5 PHB. APs in 4E couldn't be any worse.

 

[Mercule]

- Standard options tied to Action Points. Action Points should allow you to do extra, not be required to used standard options. I don't like how SWSE uses Force Points to fuel certain abilities.

Ugh. That's a lousy mechanic. I don't mind some of the Eberron feats that do that, because they are pretty well set up to feel like extraordinary luck, anyway. But to through APs for barbarian rage, martial maneuvers, turn undead, spells, etc. would sucketh mightily.

- I don't like when Action Points are used to unlock a whole bunch of other stuff. Action Points, as per Unearthed Arcana, do too much, in my opinion. You can boost feats, you can emulate feats, you can take extra actions, etc. True20 Conviction goes even further. It's unnecessary added complexity.

I generally agree, with one caveat. I like the option to get an extra did of your x/day abilities. It makes that mechanic seem less contrived. On the other hand, I don't want designers to take that "fuel" usage into much consideration when they design abilities. The abilities should be balanced without the APs. The AP system should balance its own impacts. The way UA does this has played out as balanced, IME.

 

[FickleGM]

Ugh. That's a lousy mechanic. I don't mind some of the Eberron feats that do that, because they are pretty well set up to feel like extraordinary luck, anyway. But to through APs for barbarian rage, martial maneuvers, turn undead, spells, etc. would sucketh mightily.

In all fairness to SWSE, I do believe that only some Force-related feats and talents use that mechanic. Regular class abilities do not. So, I would hope that even if the worst-case scenario came to be, that class abilities would not be tied to Action Points.

I generally agree, with one caveat. I like the option to get an extra did of your x/day abilities. It makes that mechanic seem less contrived. On the other hand, I don't want designers to take that "fuel" usage into much consideration when they design abilities. The abilities should be balanced without the APs. The AP system should balance its own impacts. The way UA does this has played out as balanced, IME.

I agree that the UA Action Points rules are balanced, but I just think that they do too much stuff. With the per-encounter model of abilities and such in 4e, I don't know if unlocking an extra usage will be necessary. I'm not sure.

 

[an_idol_mind]

I just wonder something about something other posters wrote:
If Action Points are used to protect from a bad die roll, for example against a Instant Death effect, don't they essentially become Hit Points, just different?

Basically, Hitpoints are there to protect PCs from nasty things happening to them. Instant Death effects bypass hit points. Therefore we need a new mechanic that can protect them from these effects...

Why not just make Instant Death effect hit points dependend in the first place?

Action points are separate mechanics from hit points in that they are a limited resource that you don't replenish until you level up. So someone going into a basilisk lair might be able to rely on action points for a bit, but they know there's a darned good chance they'll be turned to stone eventually. Essentially, action points help to decrease some of the risk involved while not completely eliminating the threat of instant death effects.

As to the instant death being hit point dependent thing, I prefer the existence of monsters who can feel the mightiest warrior with a glance. There's a weightier feel to effects like a death gaze or a petrification attack when players know their characters can die no matter how many hit points they have. It's not an effect I use often, but it is very effective when used well.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

That said, these seem to me to be a perfect example of a "Don't like 'em? Don't use 'em" rule. It's not as though something appearing in a core book means that the DM cannot choose not to use it.

Going by one of the blog quotes I read yesterday (and for the life of me can't remember from whom, there's so freaking MANY lately) about how 4E integrates every detail so tightly into a whole, even more so than 3.X did, coupled with my experiences while trying to "only" take out AoO mechanics from 3E...I highly doubt that ANYthing will even approach to be a perfect example of a "Don't like 'em? Don't use 'em" rule. More like the perfect example of a DM's headache waiting to happen, to be honest. Of course, that blog yould have been an overenthusiastic designer talking...but it had me worried.

Edit: here it is...David Noonan's blog. By the way, is there somebody ready to take up Glyfair's work on updating the blog thread for a while, or are we going to ride that black sheep until it drops?

Why It's Hard to Leak Stuff: Warning--this is going to be unbelievably abstract. When I take a broad, 10,000-foot view of 4e, I'm struck by how tightly integrated the system is. More game elements "talk" to each other than ever before.

That was the point where a little alarm went off in my mind and made me go "Oh no, not even MORE crowbars necessary to change something. "

 

[Mercule]

I agree that the UA Action Points rules are balanced, but I just think that they do too much stuff. With the per-encounter model of abilities and such in 4e, I don't know if unlocking an extra usage will be necessary. I'm not sure.

I think we're on the same page, here. I agree that the random usage of feats you don't have, etc. is a bit much (even though none of my players have ever done that), but squeezing an extra 1/day out of rage isn't any big deal.

With encounter-based refresh, I don't see there being a huge need for it, either. I could see a use for APs along side Tome of Battle that allows you to spend one AP to regain a single expended manuever as a free action. That would serve the same basic purpose as the extra 1/day in making the metagame balances a bit softer as less forcefully projected on the campaign world.

In practise, I think my group would be fine with three uses of APs: 1) stabilize when dying, 2) +1d6 to a d20 roll, 3) take an extra attack as part of a full attack.

It sounds like that last option would run contrary to some of 4E's design. I'd be happy if it were replaced with the 1/day or insta-refresh options I mentioned above.

 

[Mallus]

I find AP to be even worse in games such as M&M where a player feels compelled to perform for the DM in order to be able to play your character.

re: M&M... huh?

How does allowing a PC to temporarily do things outside the scope of their character's abilities equal 'being compelled to perform for the DM? I assume you're talking about using AP's to temporarily gain Power Stunts (and not beating Fatigue or making Toughness saves).

 

[Cadfan]

"Don't like 'em, don't use 'em" is a good concept, but its not certain it will be possible. If action points are integrated into class features, removing them may be very difficult. What if one of the rogue's core abilities is a higher number of action points than other classes? Dropping action points would impact the rogue worse than other classes, and require you to rewrite a bit to balance it out.

Still, I'm optimistic about this one. As long as they don't refresh based on some obnoxious metagame concept, I'll probably be happy.

 

[Kunimatyu]

As long as they aren't like the Eberron action points that add a tiny bit to your roll, we're good. I also don't like how in that system, you end up with double-digit action points before too long -- if anything, it seems like action points should be a more-or-less static resource that you regenerate on leveling up, as having too many can result in silliness.