Action Points question

[carborundum]

One of the effects listed when using an Action Point is to stabilise a dying character. I'm wondering if it's unreasonable to let a player who takes a save-or-die hit to also stabilise with an action point.

The situation:
The 2nd level party will be up against a 2nd lvl cleric with the Death Domain. There is a good chance he can hit someone with his Death Touch. The players have no access to serious recovery magic but have put a lot of work into the characters for this new campaign (Savage Tide).

I'm tempted to let the AP turn a dead into dying or, say, stable at -9 but I'm worried about the ramifications at higher levels. Can anyone advise me?

 

[kaomera]

I would say allow it. If you're seriously worried about it you could allow an AP to allow a save (or possibly to force the cleric to re-roll his attack).

On the other hand, leaving that threat in there could make victory all the sweeter for he PCs. It's really down to the attitude and expectations of the players, as a whole. If you seriously think that losing one PC is going to ruin the session (for any of them), then play it safe.

 

[carborundum]

It's a balancing act. They've all put the work in to have good back-stories which I've tweaked to make them plot-relevant and foreshadowing in lovely, sneaky ways. They're hoping to play the characters long term. I don't mind killing one but I'd just rather it wasn't so soon. Plus, they're good, sharp players, so every precedent will come back to haunt me!

To be honest, I think I'm worried I'll annoy the player if I kill off his precious so soon!

I think I'll try having the cleric use the death touch against someone with more than the minimum hitpoints or let them go to, say -1d6 and not be stable.

Cheers - just typing the question has helped me clear my head!

 

[jontherev]

Remember, that action points work for the monsters too! If you allow the players to use them, then the important monsters that you use should use them as well.

 

[Merkuri]

Remember, that action points work for the monsters too!

Actually, if you're using the Eberron rules for action points, monsters and NPCs do not get action points unless they take a feat, and they mention that that feat should be given out sparingly and only to very important NPCs. In Eberron, action points are a way to separate the PCs from the rest of the world.

And in our current campaign the DM house ruled that you could spend 2 action points to automatically stabilize at -9 if you would have died. He wanted a much lower death rate than our last campaign, which was the World's Largest Dungeon. Nobody's had to use the house rule yet, though.

 

[shilsen]

And in our current campaign the DM house ruled that you could spend 2 action points to automatically stabilize at -9 if you would have died. He wanted a much lower death rate than our last campaign, which was the World's Largest Dungeon. Nobody's had to use the house rule yet, though.

I've been using that rule (first with action pts, and now with swashbuckling cards, which we use instead) for a couple of years now, and it has worked very well. Without it, on average, we'd lose an a PC every second session. Two connected rules I have is that a PC who's stabilized at -9 in this way cannot be healed before the fight is over, and if someone targets a PC who's stabilized in this manner, then you can actually be killed.

 

[jontherev]

Actually, if you're using the Eberron rules for action points, monsters and NPCs do not get action points unless they take a feat, and they mention that that feat should be given out sparingly and only to very important NPCs. In Eberron, action points are a way to separate the PCs from the rest of the world.

And in our current campaign the DM house ruled that you could spend 2 action points to automatically stabilize at -9 if you would have died. He wanted a much lower death rate than our last campaign, which was the World's Largest Dungeon. Nobody's had to use the house rule yet, though.

I was referring to the UA rules...I'm not familiar w/Eberron. Also, I mentioned important monsters. I didn't mean that all monsters should have APs, but if the OP is concerned with balance at high levels, then he should consider giving out APs to the important monsters/npcs (without needing a feat). Personally, I think this is too much work. I was going to use this variant rule in my new campaign, but I think it's too much work for the DM to remember for the villains. Plus, I have a concern that the players will save up their APs for that one big battle with the BBEG that you've spent hours creating, and suddenly you have 6 action points being used each round by the party, which could be devastating. It just became too complicated for me, so I decided to ditch the idea. Glad to see it's getting used by others though.

 

[carborundum]

Using two sounds good, with the extra proviso that you're out for the rest of the combat. That makes the victory that much trickier, and keeps the tension up for the player with the almost dead character. It only takes one fireball, flaming sphere or falling twig in the neighbourhood to kill the PC for good. It will also work out well at low levels since they have so many more action points compared to how long a level takes (goes 3 times faster at 1st level, twice as fast at 2nd).
Thanks Shilsen!

 

[shilsen]

Using two sounds good, with the extra proviso that you're out for the rest of the combat. That makes the victory that much trickier, and keeps the tension up for the player with the almost dead character. It only takes one fireball, flaming sphere or falling twig in the neighbourhood to kill the PC for good. It will also work out well at low levels since they have so many more action points compared to how long a level takes (goes 3 times faster at 1st level, twice as fast at 2nd).
Thanks Shilsen!

Glad to help.

I should mention, BTW, that I soon switched to handing out 3 action pts a session (which didn't carry over from session to session) rather than using the standard action point awarding system, and it took 2 action pts to survive at -9. I also allowed people to contribute their APs to save a buddy, which happened a very large number of times that APs were used for the "alive at -9" option.