Why were Action Points changed from 3e to 4e?

[shmoo2]

One of the conclusions reached in the grindspace threads lately was that an encounter will become a grind when players miss with their encounter and daily powers. Effective 4e play involves stacking bonuses so that these powerful attacks hit as often as possible to eat through the monster HP quickly.

In other words, the game runs more smoothly when players have as much control as possible on when their encounter/daily powers hit to avoid the effects of bad rolls which make combat a grind.

Given that, what was the 4e design rationale for changing the way that Action Points work from 3e (Eberron, Unearthed Arcana)?

By allowing an xd6 addition to a die roll, 3e Action Points allowed players to decide when they could turn a (near) miss into a hit.

4e action points allow players to control their economy of actions and to use more powers when they need to- but not alter the effects of bad rolls which lead to grindspace.

Has anyone heard the designers' reasons for the change in Action Points form 3e to 4e or have their own theory?

 

[timbannock]

I suspect that in redefining terms (or defining new 4e-specific terms) it made more logical sense to make something called an "Action Point" give you extra "Actions."

Simple, obvious, and you only have to remember one use for the things, as opposed to 3.X where there were several uses, or more specifically, several addendums to how they were used (i.e. "You get X dice at this level, have X action points, have to track them over the course of the entire level, and this feat and that feat allow you to use them for X"). There's obviously Feats and such to expand APs in 4e, but it's much more "streamlined" IMHO.

I also think that an underlying design goal in 4e was to make tactics more important than they were. In 3.X, tactics were second to character build: most character optimization was done so that such-and-such character build could do crazy attacks ON THEIR OWN. 4E's design encourages that optimization be done in such a way where the GROUP is still important, and how they play together.

Bonuses to hit are rarer in feats, etc. because they are more often found in Combat Advantage, positioning, and bonuses granted to your character by other PC's abilities.

That's my guess.

 

[knifie_sp00nie]

I house ruled in the option to spend an AP for a d6 added to a roll and it's worked well so far.

 

[Nebulous]

I house ruled in the option to spend an AP for a d6 added to a roll and it's worked well so far.

Hmm. I might do that too.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

i have to say the change in action pnts was one of the biggest 4e deissapointments for me. in 3e games my group has pretty much always used the ua action point system and a side from the adding to a die roll, i've found the other options much more useful. in particular retaining spells and emulating feats. that stuff offered much more flexablity and really helps extend time betwen rests, ect.

Getting very few AP and only being able to spend them to get an extra attack is a big let down. When playing i had keep reminding myself i even had them, kinda takes the "action" out of "Action point", if you ask me.

 

[Ourph]

When playing i had keep reminding myself i even had them, kinda takes the "action" out of "Action point", if you ask me.

I'm assuming you weren't playing a human character and/or didn't have an Inspiring Warlord in the party then, because my players think Action Points are the greatest thing since sliced bread. For example, the Human Fighter and Wizard pretty much refuse to use their daily powers unless they're using them as part of an AP action because their hit chances increase by almost 100% when they do.

 

[gtoasnt3]

I might create a house rule that allows the PC's to add 1d6 or take an extra action. None of my guys play humans. I would think that our guys would enjoy the combat a little more and not feel helpless when the "big" hit misses as long as an action point is left.

"subscribing" to this post

 

[Crothian]

I never liked action points in 3ed. They were nearly useless. It is was rare that the d6 really helped. If the players always known what they needed to roll, then it would be more useful but in games I've been in players rarely know what they need so it is hard for them to jusge if it is a near miss or not.

 

[webrunner]

This brings to mind a question I was wondering about:

When Eberron 4e comes out are they
1) ditching old Eberron style "Do something crazy" action points and relying entirely on the new ones
2) adding a second "Plot point" counter
3) or giving everyone the ability to, as above, use existing action points in the Eberron way?

 

[Spatula]

Well (as neuronphaser notes) Action Points are now action-y, in that they let you take more actions. UA/Eberron APs would be better named Fate (or Luck, Destiny, etc.) Points.

Alternate uses for APs still exist - every paragon path gives you something extra or something different when you use APs. A number of people here have said they allow APs to be spent to accomplish special "stunts." While I have yet to see any feats or rule subsystems along the lines of Eberron that give you different things to do with APs, I'm sure they're coming.