WotC: Do NOT tie Action Points to level advancement!!!

[Dragonblade]

Hey WotC guys,

Everything I have heard about 4e tells me you are doing a lot of things right. The design philosophy of balancing the game per encounter instead of per day is a good thing.

Many of the designers have posted about how the 3e concept of resource attrition through encounters caused problems for DM, and resulted in players not having fun (e.g. Wizard characters either hoarding spells too much, or using them all up too fast, etc.)

So for gods sake, if you implement action points in the core rules, do not tie replenishment of them to level advancement! This REALLY bothers me in SW Saga, and leads to situations that make no sense like a level 20 Scoundrel having zero action points and NEVER being able to ever get any more. If the new edition of the game is about options and fun, then how is that fun??

Tying action points to level advancement is also a step backward to the 3e design concept of limited resources and challenge by attrition that you are trying to get away from!

Once again a critical resource is tied to a recharge mechanic that creates awkward play situations. For example, spells per day is "bad" because it forces wizards to use a crossbow, or to horde spells, or it makes encounter balancing difficult for the DM who never really knows if PCs can handle just one more encounter, or if that last encounter will be a TPK because they expended too many resources for the day.

Action Points tied to level advancement takes us exactly back to that same point. And don't say thats ok because APs aren't critical. If feats, talents, or class abilities rely on them, then they ARE critical. I am playing SW Saga right now and they are definitely critical.

And what if the DM likes to play in a certain level range? I know that 4e is extending the sweet spot of the game and thats great, but what if I was DM that likes to level up my players at a slower rate? Will you include some sort of alternative refresh mechanic that does not require level advancement? Otherwise, I'm unfairly punishing players who choose class abilities based on spending action points. And what about at level 30? Does the game just end? Do I just tell my players, well sorry guys, its been great, you made it to level 30 now its time to just throw away that character sheet and start over?

I don't mind if the game doesn't offer advancement past level 30, but I may want to run a level 30 game and if so then all character's abilities that rely on action points are forever rendered useless once you run out of action points!

All of these problems can be mitigated if you simply offer a non-level based refresh mechanic for action points (and NOT a refresh mechanic that requires a feat or talent. It should be built in and apply to all characters). I'm not going to say something asinine like this is a dealbreaker for me. I will still buy 4e, but this rule will really affect my enjoyment of the game. Please consider my points! Thanks for listening!

 

[FickleGM]

I think that a per-day model could work. I don't know if it should be a 1/day refresh or greater, but that would be better than the per level, even though I like per level better than arbitrary refreshing (or semi-arbitrary).

If Action Points are treated as meta-game, then make them per session (since a session is meta-game). I do this with my 3.5e game and it seems to work.

 

[Mercule]

I didn't think I'd like APs tied to level when I read UA. Turns out I was wrong. It actually works really well.

This is only true so long as APs are a "bonus" mechanic. If you have abilities that are fueled by APs (as, apparently, some Force powers are -- blech), then you need to have some other mechanism.

My strong preferrence is to keep them bonus.

 

[delericho]

I'm not really a fan of Action Points at all.

Still, I agree with the OP - I'd much rather see PCs have a number of Action Points per game session than per level.

 

[Shieldhaven]

I'd like to see, possibly from a third-party publisher (what the hell, maybe I'll write something myself) some variant systems from action point recovery. I mean, action points are functionally identical to Willpower in the World of Darkness, particularly in what it does for you and its metagame purpose. Basing action point recovery on the faithful roleplaying of a character's best and worst aspects is interesting, and more varieties would be welcome.

My list of objections to action points per level is long indeed, but it centers around the feeling that the player is called upon to guess how much XP he'll earn so he can guess how long it will be until he refreshes his action point pool. This is, for me, a deeply jarring bit of metagame thinking.

Haven

 

[PatheticWretch]

I definitely like the idea of per day or per encounter Action Points to per level. I'm on board with this suggestion.

 

[Dragonblade]

My list of objections to action points per level is long indeed, but it centers around the feeling that the player is called upon to guess how much XP he'll earn so he can guess how long it will be until he refreshes his action point pool. This is, for me, a deeply jarring bit of metagame thinking.

Haven

Yes, exactly!! QFT!

 

[Cadfan]

I agree entirely that tying action points to leveling up is a terrible, terrible idea.

I hate the idea of guessing whether I'll level up this session, and whether I should burn my action points. I hate the idea that after leveling up, I'll sit on all my action points for three sessions so that I can use them to avoid accidental death, and then burn them all on the fourth session to do cool stuff because I know I'll level up that night.

Action points per session have similar problems.

Action points are a cool idea, but make them per day. And give the players several. If you have to weaken individual action points to balance this, go ahead.

In my experience, players tend to avoid doing cool things that might accidentally kill their character. Lets say a player has the option of jumping from a rooftop onto a slippery tile roof one building over. Lots of things could go wrong. They could fail the jump check. They could fail a balance check. If the roof is too high, they could fall and die. Even if the chance of falling and dying is very low, the players won't do it because the penalty is so high. Action points give the players a way to reduce their risk, and encourage them to do interesting things in this manner. So they're a great idea.

But tying them to leveling up is an obnoxious nightmare. Please don't.

 

[Henry]

Tying them to level would be fine, as long as some provision was made about DMs giving them out at regular intervals in addition to this, or to recharge after a certain number of days/weeks/months of inactivity. An as-yet-unused house rule in my Star Wars games have been that any character who has been in downtime for 6 months has their action points reset to the default for their level; this allows for things like "old coots coming out of retirement" to fight one last battle, and such, but it's long enough where players don't receive incentive to just "sit out" for a week or two to let their force points recharge to full. It also means I can do a transition like, "the next six months goes by uneventfully. You are fervently busy with preparations for the Rebel Alliance. One day, however, General Madine has an urgent message for you..."

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'd also add that another reason for a non-level-based recharge on APs has to do with flexibility. Upping or lowering the number of APs handed out is a simple but effective way for the DM to steer the campaign toward either a wahoo (more APs) or grim-n-gritty (fewer APs) style of play. But if the APs are level-based, the level of flexibility and granularity is low enough that such a choice won't make all that meaningful a difference.