Eberron action points in other D&D settings

[d4]

I see no reason why people like the things.

because they are a way to mitigate bad luck.

 

[Gort]

Am I the only one who preferred Spycraft style action points, where you'd only get about three, but they came back at the start of every adventure?

 

[reveal]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. How can these be complicated? You get a number of Action Points per level. Use an AP to roll an extra d6 to add to any d20 roll. That's it. How is that complicated?

 

[Davelozzi]

Am I the only one who preferred Spycraft style action points, where you'd only get about three, but they came back at the start of every adventure?

Every session even, right?

Yeah, I like Spycraft action dice better than WotC action points, though I have to admit that now I'm actually getting more used to the Wotc version since I've seen them so much and I haven't been reading much Spycraft in a while.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I see no reason why people like the things. They just add a needless complication to the game. APs are just another rule. It's fine if they are optional, but they should never be core.

1. They allow the GM to occassional add some encounters a little tougher than the playes would normally handle.

2. They help reduce the tyranny of dice.

 

[reanjr]

Ach noooooo!

Action points suck. They do nothing more than hold up the game with extra attempts at rolling die. I really dislike the whole concept behind them and if they became standard, then I just could not play the game anymore.

I don't go that far, but I do agree that they are not a system that should be officially implemented except possibly as an optional rule. They can really skew a gritty-style campaign and I'm not for anything that favors PCs or NPCs. They should be treated equal.

 

[buzz]

It's fine if they are optional, but they should never be core.

APs cry out to be core the way a man stranded for weeks in the harsh desert cries out for water. Listen... can you not hear them?

IMO, lack of some sort of "dramatic editing" mechanic was the one anachronism I felt D&D still needed to address. I was very glad to see it appear in UA, and doubly so when it became a standard part of Eberron.

I would have no problem, though, if they were relegated to a self-contained section in the DMG, making it easy to omit them if you're one o' them cranky ol' poops who dunna like their players.

 

[reanjr]

1. They allow the GM to occassional add some encounters a little tougher than the playes would normally handle.

2. They help reduce the tyranny of dice.

The tyranny of the dice is what makes it a game and not just communal story-telling, though. The tyranny of the dice is what makes it fun. Players just need to learn how to run.

 

[buzz]

The tyranny of the dice is what makes it a game and not just communal story-telling, though.

As dramatic editing mechanics go, APs are pretty dang mild. It's quite a ginormous leap to think that their addition would suddenly turn D&D into Theatrix.

The tyranny of the dice is what makes it fun.

Go easy on those absolutes, there, 'pardner. It may make it fun for you, but may not make it fun for everybody. I thoroughly enjoy having a limited resource of "karma" my PC can call upon when the situation demands. (Though this is a good argument for keeping them wholly optional; i.e., taste.)

This sort of mechanic is also de rigeur in game design now, so D&D seems conspicuous in its omission of such, IMHO.

I half wonder if the discussion about keeping multiclassing restrictions for monks and paladins was similar. I.e. "options not restrictions" vs. "But D&D has always been like that".

 

[buzz]

...I'm not for anything that favors PCs or NPCs. They should be treated equal.

Straight D&D favors PCs, as do WotC's other d20 games. NPC classes and monsters tend to be weaker than PCs, mechanically. APs simply widen the gap (or compensate, in the case of gritty, low-magic campaings... Grim Tales, anyone?).