Why were Action Points changed from 3e to 4e?

[Greg K]

I also prefer 3e action points from UA. However, for the benefit to the die roll, I prefer M&M hero points to 3e action points. .

 

[shmoo2]

I suspect that in redefining terms (or defining new 4e-specific terms) it made more logical sense to make something called an "Action Point" give you extra "Actions."

I also think that an underlying design goal in 4e was to make tactics more important than they were. ...

Bonuses to hit are rarer in feats, etc. because they are more often found in Combat Advantage, positioning, and bonuses granted to your character by other PC's abilities.

I've always understood the "action" in Action Point to have the same connotation as in Action Hero or Action Figure. I don't think the name ever caused confusion in the past.

A bonus to hit from an AP is tactical. It isn't something added to the character during creation/optimization but due to a decision made by the player in game.

Crothian mentions that 3e APs were hard to use since it was difficult to guess when one had missed by a small margin so that the AP would be useful. Doesn't the "fixed math" of 4e make those decisions easier. I.e. in general a player knows they need to roll a 10 or so to hit. They could then spend an AP when rolling 6-9 or so.

I'm not arguing that 3e actions points are better. I just wonder at the rationale for the change, since the old 'add to d20 roll' APs would help solve a much discussed issue in 4e gameplay.

 

[pawsplay]

As with many things, my perception is that the 4e designers looked at a problem, identifed things that did or did not work in 3e and how it affected the game, then went and got drunk and came up with an entirely new set of rules.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

The old action points were "introduced" in Ebberron. I don't remember them being a big thing before it came out... so lets pretend no one noticed they existed until Eberron.
Now its a new edition, and Eberron isn't out yet. I smell an Eberron spacific set of rules... or even feats that have to do with using your action points differently.
I mean think about it If each setting comes with its own unique add-on, it would make perfect sence to re-introduce it in the setting it came out in.

Forgotten Realms = Spell scars
Greyhawk = Psionics (?Guessing?)
Eberron = Action points


Ravenloft = (I don't know) Fear/horror effects

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Action Points have a better defined benefit.
They give you an attack. This attack boosts your chance to hit and to deal damage in a round. They allow you to exploit a limited tactical advantage a lot better then just a +1d6 to hit would do.

You get your attack bonuses from gaining combat advantage or from your leaders (and "leadery" allies), or both. Action Points allow you to exploit a short term benefit granted by the tactical situation.

For example, a Fighter uses Come and Get It to bring several opponents close to himself. This might be one of the few moments where he actually has this many opponents around him. It might be the right moment for spending an action point to use another Close Burst power.

Alternatively, the Warlock just used that power that gives 10(+INT) Vulnerability to an opponent - now might be the time for others to spend their action point to get the chance to add this damage twice.

Or some Leader just gave you a +2 bonus to your next attack rolls, and you have combat advantage! Maybe you spend an action point _now_ to use two of your better powers, increasing your chance to deal significant damage.

Or your Wizard is Dazed, and he is currently sustaining a power. He could do nothing excepting sustaining the power, but a bunch of enemies are within range of one of his area bursts - maybe this is the time to spend an action point to sustain the power and use this opportunity.

---

4E Action Points involve more tactical thinking. Their benefits are a lot more situation dependent then a +1d6 you can give one of your attacks.

Also it might be notable that the 3E style action point doesn't work so well for attacks that target multiple enemies. If it applies only to one of the attack rolls, it is a weak effect. If it applies to all, when do you make the decision? How can you make the decision? The situation where most or all of your attacks fail (but only in a way that a +1d6 can turn this around) will happen a lot less then on single attack rolls. If you roll multiple attacks for a power, it's more likely you get a distribution of hits and misses. Even if the benefit applies to all attacks, you get less returns as if you had made only one attack.

That might be another aspect. A 4E Action Point involves a little less gambling - of course you don't know if your attack(s) on your extra action (assuming that's what you will be using them for) will hit. But whatever you do with that extra action, the benefit will be proportional to the power itself.
Humans can actually get a +3 bonus when spending action poins - and it applies to all of their attacks.

(You might note: Elven Accuracy and Wand Accuracy have similar problems - they affect only one attack. What we should take from that: Both abilities are designed for the type of character with single-target/single-attack powers!)

 

[blargney the second]

1) I find that 3e action points slow down players' decision-making process. Every time they roll the d20 they hem and haw for a while before deciding whether they use an AP or not. The closer the result is to the middle, the longer the delay.

2) 4e action points by comparison are generally much faster to use - either an extra standard action would be obviously awesome right now, or it would be wasted. Furthermore, if you miss with a reliable daily power you can try it again in the same round if you spend an action point.

All of that doesn't even get into the fact that tactical warlords that are built right can give huge attack and damage bonuses on action points. With no hemming and hawing.
-blarg

 

[Remathilis]

I assume it has to do with "the math", an AP is a free 1-6 boost to a game that makes +2 bonuses seem golden. One need only look at Sure Strike, Human Preservance, or Fighter Weapon Talent to see a +1/+2 to hit or saves is costly, and granting a free shot at +6 would break WotCs precious "math".

 

[Rel]

One thing I like about 4e Action Points is that they reset to 1 after every Extended Rest. So no point in hoarding them and constantly worrying over whether this was the "right time" to use them. You can only use them once per encounter and no guarantee you'll have another encounter that day. Just burn that puppy when it looks fun and don't worry about it.

Conversely when I ran an Eberron campaign in 3.5 my more conservative players (i.e. most of them) would very rarely spend them as things went along. Then, the session when it was obvious they'd gain a level at the end of the night, they'd spend them like crazy. It made for a very strange dynamic because those were not frequently the sessions when they were up against climactic encounters.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

the thing is it's not so much +1d6 vs an extra attack, it's +1d6 or, emulate a feat for the round, or another use of a class ablilty, or a boost to defense, or an extra attack,or boost the level of a spell, or retain a spell, or stabilize yourself vs an extra attack. That is also not taking into account how many fewer AP you get in 4e vs 3.5e.

 

[Spatula]

That not even taking into account how many few AP you get in 4e vs 3.5e.

You have 1 every 2 encounters...

Anyway, they're different beasts, so comparing the pure quantity doesn't really tell you anything.

Conversely when I ran an Eberron campaign in 3.5 my more conservative players (i.e. most of them) would very rarely spend them as things went along. Then, the session when it was obvious they'd gain a level at the end of the night, they'd spend them like crazy. It made for a very strange dynamic because those were not frequently the sessions when they were up against climactic encounters.

I've seen that, and probably been guilty of it myself when playing.