Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="stevelabny" data-source="post: 2472606" data-attributes="member: 9298">This asks for general opinions on action points, as well as the rules as written and possible house rule changes, so I put it in General. Feel free to beat me, scold me and move the post if necessary. Ok, so I'm in full-on preparation mode for my new Eberron campaign. (Finally!)And I'm currently looking at the handout for action point rules.I played in a game with a homebrew action point system, where you could use 1 AP to add to a die roll, or 2 or more AP to do other special moves.  The game was slow levelling so we got about 15-20 AP every level, plus would be rewarded AP for good role-playing or something heroic. For the most part, I thought the system worked fine but it was VERY complex and I feel even a tweaked-out version of the Eberron or Unearthed Arcana AP rules will be easier. I know that I want the Eberron game to be slower-than-normal levelling, but a lot of the "how slow" will depend on how fast a pace the players play. (Including number of sessions, hours per session and time spent on fun role-playing/ exploring the world as opposed to gaining xp through combat or plot-forwarding) I'm also concerned that I might wind up levelling the PCs slower at the middle levels that at level 1 or the higher levels.  It is hard to know when to spend action points if you have no idea when you will be getting more. 1>For those that have played using Action Points, do you use the Eberron and Unearthed Arcana  method of 5 + 1/2 level = AP for the entire level?  If not, what other methods have you used? I've thought about using the regular amount of AP but changing it from per level to PER SESSION, but fear that would be overkill. Especially during "boss-fights".I've debated doubling the number of AP per level (and any feat/class ability that grants extra AP). But then I'm afraid that it would be even worse than the previous example if they all got saved for a "boss-fight". 2>Is using this method, but adding a "no more than 1/3 of your max AP can be used in a single session" rule too complex? Then there's the issue of which action point uses to allow. Eberron only lists adding to most d20 rolls, hasten infusion (for artificers), stabilizing, and using 2 points to activate a class feature. (instead of the 1 AP this costs in the UA rules) 3> As written, do you think either the Eberron or UA rules allow adding an AP die to an initiative check or a caster level check? Neither mention initiative, they do include level checks. But if UA meant to include them, then the AP usage of improved feat: improved initiative and imrpoved feat: spell penetration seem silly. I'm leaning towards NOT allowing it toward caster level checks.UA also lists other possible uses for AP:Boost Defense doubles the AC bonus for fighting defensively. My players barely ever fight defensively, but I like the idea of using AP to boost AC. 4>Is granting a +2, +3 or +4 to AC for one round too much for one or two APs? (Besides making the improve dodge feat use useless) It seems powerful, but we had a +2 for 1AP, +4 for 2AP in the game I was a player in, and for the most part, I would only use it if I stayed one round too long in melee for sneak attacks. The other party members barely ever used it. Emulate Feat allows a PC to emulate any feat he doesnt have but meets the Prerequisites for. If I was playing, I could have fun with this but it seems llke it could be clunky in play as players use feats they aren't used to.  Also, having the limitations of having to declare it at the beginning of your turn, and it only lasting for 1 round seem to limit some of the cool tricks you might otherwise be able to pull off.  I would consider using an extra AP to use this as an immediate action, or an extra AP to make it last 1 or 2 extra arounds. 5> Is emulate feat a good idea? Are my changes making it too powerful? And while I'm at it. It would really suck to emulate a feat, and then not be able to pull it off, so 6> Is allowing two uses of AP per round, one as a special action, and one as a die improvement too powerful? How about if I specifically make it one die improvement and one feat emulation? Extra Attack: I much prefer the FEAT in Eberron that allows any move or standard action for 2 AP. drinking a potion + full attack is much more fun than having to always get one extra attack. I might bump this down to 1 AP if the action isn't used as an attack since it costs a feat also and I'd like to encourage other uses of the extra action BESIDES a 1 round haste.Spell Boost: Increases caster level by 2. this seems fine, but I'm a bit worried that the extra 2d6 on damage spells will be enough to finish off some enemies when the first fireballs and lightning bolts hit the battlefield. Spell Recall: Allows preparation-casters to keep a spell when they cast it. I definitely don't want to allow this. At higher levels, letting wizards get extra spells per day takes away one of the limitations that keeps them in check. 7> Am I wrong in thinking that spell recall is too powerful? If so, why? Improving Feats: Pay an AP and double the bonuses from your feats where applicable (or get other improved varations of a feat like a single auto-hit with blind-fight)I suppose this is ok as long as you tell the player's upon feat selection what the improved version of their feat is. But it could get annoying if player's keep coming to you asking about the improved versions of different feats to compare. 8> If there's anything I missed, or if you want to share your action point love-stories and horror-stories, let me know. </blockquote>

Verification