GRIM TALES mixed with D&D classes: Action Points?

[Turanil]

Okay, I am still actively designing my Grim Tales campaign setting, and must work on several things at once.

So, I have decided this: Adventuring classes are those from Grim Tales. But there is also NPC classes, and they are the SRD Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, and Ranger (without spells), plus a few others (UA Thug, AU Unfettered, etc.): only classes without supernatural or magic. My first reason to include them was to be able to use existing stat-blocks for NPCs, not having to create a bunch of them, which is long and fastidious.

Now, for various reasons I have also decided that players could rather choose to be of these Fighter/Rogue/etc. classes instead of Grim Tales classes. Of course, it will be impossible to mix D&D with Grim Tales classes, plus none of the nice features of Grim Tales classes will be allowed to D&D classes, such as Magic-use, Defense bonus, or Action Points. But here is the problem: Action Points.

Action Points are really the nice thing, IMO, to differentiate Grim Tales classes from D&D classes. Now, there is the problem of Critical Hits + Action Points. I don't know what to choose, and would like to know your opinion about it. Basically I see two choices:

1) Action Points have nothing to do with Critical Threats & Hits, which are handled in the normal 3.5 way (critical dmg if confirmed hit). As such, only the Grim Tales classes get Action Points, which gives a significant advantage and difference, putting them ampart from all other classes, and making them all the more desirable. In this option, Grim Tales classes = heroes, while Fighters/Rogues/etc. = mere everyday life commoners.

2) Action points are required to confirm a Critical Hit, and you get Action Points for Critical Misses and being subject to an enemy's Critical Hit. In this option, even Fighters/Rogues/etc. will have some Action Points, even if much less than adventuring classes. It makes Grim Tales classes less apart from them. I don't want to go for complicated houserules where D&D classes could use Action Points only for certain things such as Critical Hits, while Grim Tales classes can use them for everything.

Of course, maybe my players will finally all take Grim Tales classes (I am doing everything to encourage them, but subtly, as I want to leave them the choice).

Note also that when Grim Tales tells ( ) that you confirm a Critical Hit with an Action Point, do you have to give action points (and thus keep track of them) to NPCs and monsters? Or do they use different rules than PCs?

What do you thing about it?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit: Maybe the trick would be of having Critical Hits work as in regular 3.5, but those with Action Points have the opportunity to use them to immediately confirm the hit rather than reroll the d20. I see this as my prefered option, but maybe I overlook something important with that houserule?

Thanks

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I just bought Grim Tales, and though I think it's fantastic, and though I like the Action Points concept, I don't like the way the Action Points are hard-wired into the core mechanics. For example, I don't like the way certain feats and talents require you to burn an Action Point, and I don't like the fact that you must burn an Action Point to confirm a critical threat. The reason being is that critical hits and the aforementioned feats and talents become less useful in campaigns where fewer Action Points are handed out. I consider Action Points to be a nice add-on to the core mechanics, and the GM should be free to dish out as many or as few of them as he or she wants without affecting players' choices regarding their character builds.

My solution to the critical hits is to use the 3.5 version of confirming a critical threat as the default. Optionally, a character who gets a critical threat can burn an Action Point instead to automatically confirm that threat (as per Grim Tales rules).

As for the feats and talents which require an Action Point to activate, I change that requirement to uses/day. For instance, I've decided that the Rage talent allows you to Rage once per day plus additional uses equal to one quarter of your Tough level rounded down (which is, incidentally, exactly how many uses per day a D&D barbarian gets).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Note also that when Grim Tales tells ( ) that you confirm a Critical Hit with an Action Point, do you have to give action points (and thus keep track of them) to NPCs and monsters? Or do they use different rules than PCs?

Page 3, last paragraph at the bottom of the page: The GM "spends" action points to confirm criticals by awarding an action point to the player.

The only change you really need to worry about is whether or not you want to award action points for non-GT character levels. For example, if a character is a Strong-6/Rogue-6, how many action points does he get?

I would award action points only for GT character levels.

I also think you're making an error in assuming that, just because you want to save some time with statblocks, the PCs have to have access to those character classes. PCs encounter opponents all the time that have abilities they do not (i.e., everything that normally classifies as a monster and has no classes). Just as you can use an "ochre jelly" statblock without allowing your PCs to play as ochre jellies, you can use a "rogue" statblock without allowing your PCs to play as rogues.

That is a fallacy and I would definitely NOT do it, as you can see how many rules you have to start bending once you bend one. Sure, d20 is flexible enough to do it, but how far it flexes before it breaks is not something you want to find out mid-campaign. Sort yourself out before you start.

Wulf

 

[BryonD]

I just bought Grim Tales, and though I think it's fantastic, and though I like the Action Points concept, I don't like the way the Action Points are hard-wired into the core mechanics. For example, I don't like the way certain feats and talents require you to burn an Action Point, and I don't like the fact that you must burn an Action Point to confirm a critical threat. The reason being is that critical hits and the aforementioned feats and talents become less useful in campaigns where fewer Action Points are handed out. I consider Action Points to be a nice add-on to the core mechanics, and the GM should be free to dish out as many or as few of them as he or she wants without affecting players' choices regarding their character builds.

My solution to the critical hits is to use the 3.5 version of confirming a critical threat as the default. Optionally, a character who gets a critical threat can burn an Action Point instead to automatically confirm that threat (as per Grim Tales rules).

My interpretation:

This is part of the Grim Tales **Characters win by their own abilities** concept.

Crits are fun and I wouldn't try to talk someone out of doing it the D&D way if they want that.

But, if you use D&D crits, then a significant luck element is retained that chnages the character's effectiveness. If you get lucky in a big fight and score three crits, you take some of the glory out of it. In effect you character becames temporarily much better than he "really" is, purely by luck.

In GT, if you roll those three 20s, you have to choose whether or not to spend some of your mojo to get that bonus. Effectively, you spent more of youself to get there, rather than just getting a lucky bonus. And it is significant, because in order to get all three crits you would need to conserve some resources in the process of getting up to that fight AND be prepared to accept that you have fewer resources later on.

Your character has a set total potential and you overcome obstacles by effective use of that total potential, not by lucky overachievement.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

My interpretation:

This is part of the Grim Tales **Characters win by their own abilities** concept.

Crits are fun and I wouldn't try to talk someone out of doing it the D&D way if they want that.

But, if you use D&D crits, then a significant luck element is retained that chnages the character's effectiveness. If you get lucky in a big fight and score three crits, you take some of the glory out of it. In effect you character becames temporarily much better than he "really" is, purely by luck.

In GT, if you roll those three 20s, you have to choose whether or not to spend some of your mojo to get that bonus. Effectively, you spent more of youself to get there, rather than just getting a lucky bonus. And it is significant, because in order to get all three crits you would need to conserve some resources in the process of getting up to that fight AND be prepared to accept that you have fewer resources later on.

Your character has a set total potential and you overcome obstacles by effective use of that total potential, not by lucky overachievement.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's that big a deal; you can get lucky by rolling high on your to-hit rolls and rolling max damage too. But anyway, my point was that I don't like Action Points being a part of the core mechanics. I'm more bothered by the feats and talents that require burning Action Points to activate them, for the reasons I listed in my original post. Do you have any opinions on that?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'm more bothered by the feats and talents that require burning Action Points to activate them, for the reasons I listed in my original post. Do you have any opinions on that?

1/day for every 4 levels is certainly a viable workaround, but, as Bryon pointed out, it does keep your heroes from "heroic overload."

That is to say, a 1st level character could burn through all 5 action points to use an ability 5 times in one day.

Your heroes can't do that.

Wulf

 

[Turanil]

For example, if a character is a Strong-6/Rogue-6, how many action points does he get? I would award action points only for GT character levels.

I see that you don't seem to consider mixing a Grim Tales class with a D&D class (non-spellcaster of course) as an heresy. Currently I did rule against it: either the six Grim Tales classes and all that entail, or the (non spellcasting) D&D classes and all that entails (including XP penalty on multiclassing, that Grim Tales classes don't suffer).

Now I like the system of using an action point to automatically confirm a critical threat, instead of re-rolling the attack die. However, I will give that as an option to Grim Tales characters, but the 3.5 system will remain the default method. Action points will be awarded for critical misses with DM determining unpleasant outcomes (hit oneself, break weapon, etc.), not for an opponent striking a critical hit. As such, maybe that a Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian will get an action point in such cases, but otherwise action points will remain an exclusive feature of Grim Tales classes.

Finally I like what I houseruled: adventurers are individuals who develop various abilities, so it's normal that they are of Grim Tales classes, which are uber customization, plus have an heroic flavor with action points, defense bonus, and reputation scores (all classes will have a reputation score, but for non-Grim Tales it remains at 0). Then, common people with an everyday profession always the same, plus an almost boring life, will have determined classes such as fighter for a regular soldier. Well, it's my fluff for it anyway, but I like it.

I have still many things to prepare for that campaign, but with now a potential of 8 players interested in it, I could even go as far as running two groups! One of the player even ordered his copy of Grim Tales, something I am pleased with, as usually the players don't want to bother themselves buying anything beyond the three core books. I have great expectation for that campaign!

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

1/day for every 4 levels is certainly a viable workaround, but, as Bryon pointed out, it does keep your heroes from "heroic overload."

That is to say, a 1st level character could burn through all 5 action points to use an ability 5 times in one day.

Your heroes can't do that.

Wulf

I should have elaborated: the uses per day is the default system. You can still use an Action Point to use those feats, just as I outlined in my critical hits variant.

Don't get me wrong.. I really like Action Points and the way you can burn them to achieve more cinematic effects. I'm not trying to get rid of that aspect of Grim Tales, I'm just trying to keep the Action Points out of the basic game mechanics.

Edit: Hey, I just noticed that you are the creator of Grim Tales! I just wanted to say that Grim Tales is the best d20 product I own. The low-magic system and the CR calculation system are lights out! The fine granularity of your ruleset (especially the CR caculation system) really opens the doors to easy-to-create balanced races, monsters, and campaign worlds. Great stuff.

 

[BryonD]

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's that big a deal; you can get lucky by rolling high on your to-hit rolls and rolling max damage too. But anyway, my point was that I don't like Action Points being a part of the core mechanics. I'm more bothered by the feats and talents that require burning Action Points to activate them, for the reasons I listed in my original post. Do you have any opinions on that?

Obviously as long as you are rolling dice there will be luck. But Crits are a whole separate tier.

As far as Action points being built into the system, that seems to be fairly standard. D20 modern uses it. Unearthed Arcana doesn't, but only because it is constrained into being a bolt-on system. Over in Eberron they are kinda inbetween, an add-on to the existing D&D with some mechanics that build it in.

I don't think it is right or wrong, good or bad. I think that I grok the intent of GT fairly well. And I think that using action points as a built in regulator on any and all overachievements is a very good thing for that style. However, I also think that there is a ton of stuff in GT that can be used for a game that isn't truly in tune with the heart of GT heroics.

I'd certainly never dream of requiring an Eberron barbarian to spend an action point in order to rage. But I think requiring GT toughs to do so makes perfect sense. So I can't really have an opinion of which way is better. I can only have an opinion that based on your choice your game is to some degree more like D&D or more like GT. As those are both good options, it seems to be a matter of selecting which of numerous in between "win" scenarios you most desire.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Don't get me wrong.. I really like Action Points and the way you can burn them to achieve more cinematic effects. I'm not trying to get rid of that aspect of Grim Tales, I'm just trying to keep the Action Points out of the basic game mechanics.

Ahhh... Gotcha.

I got a dirty little secret: It's hard to break out of the usual 3.0/3.5 habits. I've run "Grim Tales" games and completely forgotten to use Action Points to confirm criticals.

And the game went right on rolling...

EDIT: Oh! And I am glad you like GT. Don't forget to vote in the ENnies!


Wulf