A Discussion of Action Points ...

[Levi Kornelsen]

I'm interested in how this works out.

Ditto.

DogBackward, once you've tried this out, I'd love to hear more.

 

[Victim]

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

That's not how Exalted works.

level 1: Description (non repetitive)
level 2: Description plus using the environment
level 3: ZOMG I HAD A COW

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Exalted's method is cool. Plus the ability to gain extra dice due to a good idea or description? Classic.

I recently modified the Action Points/Hero Points/Kicker in action at the Boston GameDay (after many years of using the Arcana Unearthed method, which is closest to #3). Every player received an Action Chip (poker), good for one standard action. Cash it in, get the action. The DM then got to use it for one NPC. After the fight, if the DM used it, the chip went back to the PC. I thought it helped encourage a lot of "heroic action" by supplying the missing element. The extra time to get the description done that the system explicily forecloses.

 

[Nifft]

That's not how Exalted works.

level 1: Description (non repetitive)
level 2: Description plus using the environment
level 3: ZOMG I HAD A COW

Right! Environment.

Thanks, -- N

 

[Victim]

Right! Environment.

Thanks, -- N

Yeah. The point is that only the level 3 stunt is really a subjective call.

 

[Phlebas]

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.

I played in an earthdawn campagn where this is a basic rule - one thing we all noticed was that it worked much better for multiple small dice than a d20 (though if you did get a 20 - woo hoo!) - on the other hand it remains one of the more exciting systems i've rolled dice in.

one suggestion i've discussed with a few friends is to have 1d6 per AP for attack rolls, and 2d6 for skill checks - combine that with a roll again on a 6 rule and you have defintely have a system that encourages death defying manouevers .....

 

[Turanil]

I want heroic action, not "I add +3 to my attack roll".

Same problem here. I am also thinking what to do. Maybe this, I would like to know what you think of it:

1) AP can only be used in emergency situation, where immediate action of importance is required.

2) AP would work as follows: character must rely on another ability of his own, usually a skill check, to get a bonus in what he tries to attempt. This forces the player to think about something special and describe a stunt, clever ruse, or what not.
-- For example: PC wants to use an AP to get a bonus to his attack roll. He says that he is looking for a weak spot in the opponent's armor, and then rolls for a Spot check. If he succeeds, he gets a bonus die to roll. If he succeeds vs DC 15 he will get +1d6 to his attack roll, but if he succeeds vs DC 20 he will get +2d6, DC 25 would entitle 3d6, etc.
-- Another example: Cleric PC wants to use an AP to give more hps with a cure-light-wound spell during the heat of combat. So, rather than just cast the spell normally, she desperately calls upon her deity. The DM decides this will be best resolved with a Cha check, maybe adding level to the roll. Similar to above, If the cleric succeeds, she gets a bonus die to her hp roll. If she succeeds vs DC 15 she will get +1d6 to the hp restored, but if she succeeds vs DC 20 she will get +2d6 hp, DC 25 would entitle 3d6 hp, etc.

The problem with this method is about creative thinking because it's likely to slow the game when players try to find some ideas.

 

[GeeksDreamGirl]

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.

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.

I really like this idea. I play in an Eberron campaign at the moment and I don't really understand how action points make it more "pulp" either. Usually we don't break out action points until we know the AC of the monster, so it's basically like "oh crap, I'm 2 points away from hitting, let me roll an action point".

I'm going to suggest this system to my group and see what they think.

e.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

We've played two sessions so far with my actions points house rule -- use d10s, but declare before rolling -- and I have to say I like it a lot. In fact, in one of the games in which I play we're still using Unearthed Arcana action points, and I'm finding them more and more irritating.

For those of you vaguely unsatisfied with action points, even if you don't really understand why, I suggest trying this house rule.

I'm giving it two more sessions to be more certain, but if things go as I expect, this house rule will be Number Four in my very short house rules document.

(For the curious, the others are: (1) The Arcana Evolved Disabled/Dying rules, (2) Elimination of raise dead and resurrection in favor of revivify and resuscitate, and (3) "Training" rules (one or four months' downtime required after gaining one or two levels).)

 

[GeeksDreamGirl]

Jeff,

It sounds interesting! I posted about it on my blog and my readers had quite the spirited debate! Was fun reading, especially since I'm sort of a newb to D&D.