Rules that still feel unneeded (to me)

[TwinBahamut]

I actually like the idea of milestones, but just not milestones as "completing two encounters". I like the idea of milestones as the various smaller objectives that the heroes complete as they go through an adventure. On a quest to rescue the princess from a villain's lair, getting into the evil lair, finding the princess's location, rescuing the princess, defeating the villain's lieutenant, and escaping the lair might all be milestones which reward an action point. Action points are the karmic reward for good deeds done and heroic things accomplished.

If that is not the actual rule for milestones in the PHB and DMG, then I will houserule it to be such.

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

You know what? In order to actually PREVENT the 15 minute workday/6 hour camp, I think I will allow the players to use up to 3 action points per encounter... to reward the extended adventuring.

 

[maggot]

For me, it's certain abilities (in particular the elf's bonus to Perception, the half-elf's bonus to Diplomacy, the rogue's bonus to daggers) that seem unneeded rather than actual rules.

QFT

 

[keterys]

A milestone was not stuck at exactly two encounters in one of the modules I played, which suggests it's more of a 'when the DM/adventuremaker chooses'.

I would suggest against allowing more than 1 action point to be used per combat. You'll just encourage hording them until a 'boss' fight, which means people won't have fun with them in non-boss fights and will trivialize the boss fight. Lose/Lose.

 

[Simon Marks]

I would suggest against allowing more than 1 action point to be used per combat. You'll just encourage hording them until a 'boss' fight, which means people won't have fun with them in non-boss fights and will trivialize the boss fight. Lose/Lose.

I play the 'Buffy' game regularly. Hoarding points and splashing them out works for us in that. It's a different dynamic but it works. It allows for a very cinematic style, but you have to assume that players will indeed do this.

It rewards you for not stopping, so you do 8-10 (say) encounters without using (many) action - keeping going and building a pool of them. When you reach the 'climax', you burn out your pool but you need to.

The problem with having to spend them as often as you get them is that the 'resting = 1 AP' isn't actually an issue because having more than 1 AP is a bit of a waste, and having more than 2 is really a waste.

I'd be surprised in you couldn't spend more than 1 AP in an encounter. I'd be even more surprised if you could get more than 1 extra action that way.

I expect AP's to be a currency, which can power many things. Actually and opposite to healing surges. Lets compare;
Healing Surges -> Reset to full by resting
Action Points -> Reset to 1 by resting
Healing Surges -> Any player can use 1 per encounter to heal
Action Points -> Any player can use 1 per encounter to get an extra action
Healing Surges -> Some players can trigger them multiple times in an encounter
Actions Points -> I expect some (or all) players can use them for something other than an extra action in addition.

See?

 

[keterys]

Perhaps - but I wouldn't make that state the default. Spending them for other things, sure... but having a combat where every round you take 2 actions and blow through it without a problem? Or, if you happened to rest instead, have intense difficulty with cause the DM assumed you'd be full of action points? Meh.

 

[Simon Marks]

I think it may well work, for two reasons.

1) The DM controls the number of milestones, and so can (will) limit the number of AP's that could possibly gain before a 'climax'. With characters having up to 10-20 healing surges, you can easily guess how long a group can keep going.

2) Fights (should) last many rounds, AP's are quite limited in comparison. Having everyone with 5-8 APs will double the damage output for a group for a few rounds, but you will have very few healing surges.

I guess we'll have to see how it plays, but I wouldn't assume that AP's swing the combat that much until then.
I'm guessing it will be fine because I've seen it work in other systems.

 

[keterys]

Hmm - I will say that you generally only get to spend... maybe a couple... healing surges in a combat. For many characters it will be one. For the tank it might be three, but much less than your daily limit.

The designers of 4E pegged an action point as almost on par with a daily - figuring that you use the action point to double your output or do something more versatile and useful. Take that as you will.

 

[hamishspence]

Deathwatch as evil

there is one big problem with deathwatch being evil: the healer, which had to be good, had it on its spell list, and the slayer of Domiel, an Exalted prestige class, also had it. Plus, it had no alignment type in 3rd ed (though Vile Darkness recommended making it Evil)

So, i would have a Errata: Deathwatch: remove Evil type: rule in my games. Would make more sense than removing it from both class lists. Especially given that other negative energy related spells mentioning "the powers of unlife" (Kiss of the Vampire) do not have the evil type.

4th ed: I like the Bloodied idea: it gives you a hint that character is weakened some. Not as complex as the full Saga Edition condition track, but a nod to realism.

Of course, I do not expect high realism, but these little nods are a good sign.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I would have prefered if action points were rewarded differently. They've already said that they encourage DMs to leave players at the same exp, even if they don't attend that week. Well, if the DM is going to leave players at the same exp no matter what, then exp can't be used as a reward for good roleplaying, good ideas, etc. I think that's where action points should come in. Give them out as rewards for things you would normally give a player extra exp for, and then remove the restriction on how many they can use each encounter (but no more than 1 per round, to prevent abuse).

That's my 2 copper.