Post/Author/DateTime	Post
jer1_1 12-02-05, 01:43 AM	ok so i just started my players in eberron tonight. we played for around two and a half three hours and no action points were used. i think they forgot they even had them. i'm thinking that its a side effect of coming from generic dnd to eberron and i was wondering if anyone else has or is having this problem. i can't help but wonder if its my fault as a dm for not providing "swashbuckling" type situations to use them in. if anyone has any advice or insight about types of situations to provide the players or things i can do that make my players go "hey maybe i should use an ap" it would be greatly appreciated.
a_psh 12-02-05, 02:15 AM	Hmm... well, to introduce them to the habit... When the players are in a "near miss" situation, let them know. It's probably not gonna ruin anything if you spend an encounter or two pointing out things like "Hmm... that was only a mediocre roll, but you definitely have a high chance of beating the skeleton's AC if you add an action point right now, if you really want to hit him," or "10 and your Will save modifier is +0... given what we know about spells and save DCs, this might be a good time to try an action point." It might feel a bit heavy-handed to suggest this stuff (even though you're not forcing them to do it), but quite useful if done a few times just as you're starting out. Just make sure they avoid falling into the trap of "I could easily make this unimportant attack hit by using an action point right now. So, clearly, I definitely should." My PCs generally started out discussing action point use among themselves (like "I missed when I got a 17 last round, so that's going to be a near miss unless you action point it," or "You have a lot and are near to a level... might as well burn 'em and do something awesome while scooping up the experience points!"), and it really got them strategizing and, more importantly, using those little things to beat the odds. Even though everyone is very good with 'em now, they still do talk about it a fair bit (I don't mind particularly).
rampant 12-02-05, 02:30 AM	my strategy is teach by example have npc's use them, yeah the book says npcs don't have them or at least not as many but i've only ever played in small groups where the dm ran a member of the party so that char tends to have full action points
JBW 12-02-05, 02:40 AM	If you have a chance to do away with action points before the players notice, then do it! Those damn things really take a whole lot of the fun out of the game by drastically reducing the element of risk from creatures that rely on "save-or-die" effects (such as a medusa), and they drastically power-up the Power Attack monkey (especially a Barbarian with Raging Luck that can use a free AP with every Rage). Jay
a_psh 12-02-05, 03:06 AM	Those damn things really take a whole lot of the fun frustration out of the game by drastically reducing the element of risk chance your character will get reamed by a single mediocre die roll from creatures that rely on "save-or-die" effects (such as a medusa)Fixed it for you. The actual probability changes, but all the risk is still there. Remember, action points will only nudge a result up a little. If players truly roll poorly, they're going to fail anyway. I find that I'd rather let the PCs frustrate my DM plans sometimes than butcher them all mercilessly in a particular session just because they were continuously rolling on the low end of mediocre. Action points let them fix the problem themselves, when they need to. I see nothing wrong here.
a_psh 12-02-05, 03:11 AM	my strategy is teach by example have npc's use them, yeah the book says npcs don't have them or at least not as many but i've only ever played in small groups where the dm ran a member of the party so that char tends to have full action points I'd recommend not giving said character any action points. He may be an ally, but he shouldn't be a PC. It's a great way to keep him from hoggiing the spotlight. Just, y'know, sayin'. The only NPCs in my world with action points have explicitly earned them by taking Heroic Spirit. These tend to be people with a crazy amount of potential (stats equal to the PCs'; most major NPCs have pb 25 to their pb 28, in contrast).
JBW 12-02-05, 03:35 AM	Fixed it for you. If you say so. :rolleyes: Your experiences and mine obviously differ. However, your post makes it clear that you - like many of the players that enjoy action points - can't stand to fail. Failure is as important as success, and neither should be weighed more heavily than the other in considering dramatic content. I've had great times when I've failed and lously times upon succeeding...but it's pretty apparent I'm in the minority. Still, there is no argument that the basic balance of D&D - the basic odds of success and failure - are upset by the addition of action points. As an experiment, give action points to the opposition and see how long PC spellcasters will like the enemy avoiding many of their best spells. Jay
Pan_Ai_Khan 12-02-05, 08:11 AM	I'm an old hat at D&D, and quite a few other RPG's, but a newbie at Eberron. I must say that the Action Point system in Eberron is easier to understand (and less game-breaking) than other limited-use 'Fate' related point systems. As a player, I can see it's going to take me a while to get used to them, but sinse I'm playing an Artificer, I can see a lot of them being used to fast-cast spells :(
a_psh 12-02-05, 11:17 AM	Your experiences and mine obviously differ. However, your post makes it clear that you - like many of the players that enjoy action points - can't stand to fail. Failure is as important as success, and neither should be weighed more heavily than the other in considering dramatic content. I've had great times when I've failed and lously times upon succeeding...but it's pretty apparent I'm in the minority.From the perspective of the players sitting at the table, rolling a 1 on your Fortitude save and being turned to ash is heroic in its own way. Big, high-spirited, catastrophic failure. A big, tragic death. Rolling just 1 or 2 under the save DC and being turned to ash just kind of sucks, in contrast. Small, petty, inconvenient failure. Just a little more and you wouldn't be scrwed. Shakespeare's Hamlet vs. Kafka's Metamorphosis, if you will. Same results, but their visceral reactions to it are quite different. Action points turn near misses into successes. They can't cover true failure, like rolling a 2 on that DC 26 save. This gives players a limited capacity to "nudge" fate, but they can't actually control it. Proportions and percentages and probabilities are upset a bit by this, certainly. However, this is probably a necessary thing if you want to use a lot of impressive battles against really challenging foes, as the campaign setting suggests. (And the really challenging foes should have 2-3 action points of their own.) Basically, if you want to get close to books and movies, where characters are usually specifically succeeding against the odds, the more you need this mechanic for slightly skewing the outcome of particularly vital rolls. I'm predominantly a DM. I make it hard to come back from the dead. Thus, I don't want PCs dying left and right on trivial things. When it's about battling, say, the really important campaign villains, both PCs and NPCs are capable of using action points, which has the nice effect of decreasing the likelihood that the first disintegrate spell will end it all. I consider action points to be a good thing because they makes the big moments bigger. When it's about more basic, run-of-the-mill combat scenarios, action points keep it from turning truly ugly because of bad rolls alone. If the players keep getting 15 or lower on their attacks and they need to hit AC 18, an otherwise simple encounter where they're using great tactics can still go terribly wrong for them (yes, I know about aid another, &c.). I'd prefer to let them use up some of their luck to get through the battle than to have one lowly minion smash them all to bits. Note that action points won't save them if they keep getting 5s and 6s on their attacks, anyway; there's definitely still room for catastrophic fate-based failure, it's just less likely. I had one player who couldn't roll above a 10 on a d20 to save her life. Always close, but never sufficient. With action points, she at least had a fighting chance of succeeding when she really, really wanted to. Often, about 20-30% of action point use in my games is for non-combat actions, though: using an action point to help a particularly difficult skill check.
JBW 12-02-05, 12:12 PM	From the perspective of the players sitting at the table, rolling a 1 on your Fortitude save and being turned to ash is heroic in its own way. Big, high-spirited, catastrophic failure. A big, tragic death. Rolling just 1 or 2 under the save DC and being turned to ash just kind of sucks, in contrast. Theere is no difference. D&D does not have degrees of success and failure when resolving a die roll, there is simply success and failure. Rolling a 1 to fail and rolling a 6 to fail when you need an 8 for success are equally tragic. Action points eliminate a big part of this, especially as saves often increase faster than DCs. However, this is probably a necessary thing if you want to use a lot of impressive battles against really challenging foes, as the campaign setting suggests. If by impressive battles you mean increase the ELs the party faces by +1 to +2 to account for the players' action points, then I might agree. As it is, it scews equal CR encounters to the point where the players have easy walk-throughs. This leads to players that don't plan becasue they don't have to - and that means they just kick in doors without thinking. If this is your preferred style - and it was mine more than 10 years ago - then action points might sound great. Basically, if you want to get close to books and movies, where characters are usually specifically succeeding against the odds, the more you need this mechanic for slightly skewing the outcome of particularly vital rolls. The problem is that D&D adventures don't really put you against the odds. Almost every encounter is weighed in favor of the PCs from the beginning. This is why an equivalent CR encounter only takes 20-25% of your resources under normal conditions. The DMG suggests that only a small portion of encounters be tougher. Giving action points really scews those smaller number of tough encounters, especially if the tough encounter is based upon a save-allowing effect. When it's about more basic, run-of-the-mill combat scenarios, action points keep it from turning truly ugly because of bad rolls alone. I'd prefer to think of every encounter as life-or-death, not run-of-the-mill. Otherwise it starts feeling less like a fantasy game and more like superheroes (which I'm not interested in). I had one player who couldn't roll above a 10 on a d20 to save her life. Always close, but never sufficient. With action points, she at least had a fighting chance of succeeding when she really, really wanted to. It's a game. She failed, so let her fail. This is what I meant by action points are for people that can't stand to fail. Everyone wants to succeed, so why do her desires alone allow her to warp probability (unless she's a Fatespinner ;))? Unless they're weighted, the dice are giving her the same probabilities of success and failure as anyone else with a similar build. That should be enough. If she gets disappointed and quits, find someone else to replace the crying baby - someone that's not hung up on winning all the time. Jay
The Brat Prince 12-02-05, 12:25 PM	JBW, Action Points aren't about "warping fate through desire alone." They're a way to make the PCs even more heroic/special than they already are. Part of the whole idea of Eberron IMO is that the PCs have the standard Movie Hero luck. They can run past hordes of EC archers and never get hit, yet they can take out as many was they want with a snap shot over the shoulder. It's all very cinematic and James Bond, which is the point of Eberron. It's not normal D&D, the PCs are supposed to be truly unique individuals capable of a lot more than normal folks. So basically, lay off big guy. You don't like AP. We get it. The rest of us seem to be rather fond of the concept. Maybe you can let us "crying babies" have some fun.
DoveArrow 12-02-05, 12:36 PM	I actually experienced the same problem with my group and at first, I was really frustrated by it. Then I decided, at the risk of sounding like Regis Philbin from Who Wants to be a Millionaire, when he says 'Is that your final answer?" I started asking the players, over and over again "Do you want to use an action point?" It got to be kind've a joke because sometimes they'd roll a critical and I'd say "Do you want to use an action point?" or I'd forget momentarily and say "You hit! I mean... do you want to use an action point?" A year later, I sometimes still have to remind my players that they have action points (usually when the roll is really close, and they haven't yet figured out what the NPC's armor class is). However, for the most part, they burn through action points so fast that I don't have to say anything anymore. Later.
MarkB 12-02-05, 12:49 PM	I did much the same as DoveArrow to encourage my players to use APs - I'd give really long pauses whenever they'd rolled close to a success, or say "Are you sure that's all?" I also had the advantage that, at the time, we were playing a game with pre-gen characters that I'd built to introduce them to Eberron, so a lot of them had the Action Point-related feats. Now, they're totally used to it, and only rarely forget to use an AP in a tight spot. As the DM, I'm very happy with the system - it makes the game more fun for the players, and allows me to be a bit more comfortable with facing them with serious challenges.
shadowpavement 12-02-05, 01:34 PM	I guess I got lucky. My girlfriend and I come from a pretty extensive Shadowrun background where Karma points mean the differnce between life and death. So it was pretty easy to make the transition to Action Points. I tend to use them more like SR karma points and let my players spend them to make a reroll. Nothing quite like seeing what a player does when they are on the edge between victory and defeat and you just give them a blank look after they've made their d20 roll and ask "Are you happy with that?" :evillaugh
Calibim 12-02-05, 02:06 PM	SWEET MONKEY CHRISTMAS!!! Laying it on a bit thick there ain't you JBW. Action Points are not about wanting to win all the time. They are about wanting to be Indiana Jones, or O’Connell from the Mummy. They give you that extra oomph to get the job done. Numerous PrCs in Eberron are based around actions points (the Extreme Explore and the Dragon Marked Heir spring to mind). Action Points give you flair and a well source to make player characters stand truly head and shoulders above normal NPCs. Action points give you new mechanics to work with as well. Burn 2 and your paladin can do an extra smite that day. Now here is the thing you action points are LIMITED. And they only add d6 (or d8 if you have the right feat) to a d20 roll. So it gives you a CHANCE to actually succeed where you might have failed, but does not guarantee that you succeed. That does not break the game. Period. What it does do is, as your 6th level character is sliding down a steep slope in the jungles of Xen’drik heading towards a 60ft drop into gator filled water you reach out and snag a branch (a Move action) and as you dangle reach out and grab your Halfling friend, Traskin, just as he goes over the side (another move action made possible by the Action Surge feat where you spend 2 action points to do a move action). But as you grab Traskin’s tunic, it rips (failed your roll) but you make one last desperate attempt and lock onto his wrist (Action Point spent added to the original roll and made a success….barely). At 6th level you get 8 action point (5 plus ˝ your level). Out of those 8 You just spent 3. One encounter. That, my friend, is how action points work. Theere is no difference. D&D does not have degrees of success and failure when resolving a die roll, there is simply success and failure. Rolling a 1 to fail and rolling a 6 to fail when you need an 8 for success are equally tragic. Action points eliminate a big part of this, especially as saves often increase faster than DCs. I’m sorry but rolling a 1 is an automatic failure. Rolling a 6 may actually be a success when you factor in skill ranks magically enhancements and attribute bonuses. But even with all of that if you roll a 1 then you fail. I don’t care if you do have 10 ranks in Bluff, a Glibness spell, and a Charisma of 18 and the DC was only 20. You rolled a 1. You FAILED. So yeah that sounds like degrees of failure to me. If by impressive battles you mean increase the ELs the party faces by +1 to +2 to account for the players' action points, then I might agree. As it is, it scews equal CR encounters to the point where the players have easy walk-throughs. This leads to players that don't plan becasue they don't have to - and that means they just kick in doors without thinking. If this is your preferred style - and it was mine more than 10 years ago - then action points might sound great. Action Points don’t make people undefeatable. The action points only give them a d6 (ord8) change to a 20-sided roll, among other things (feats, extra uses of certain abilites). As I said before they are limited. They run out. They don’t last forever. And just cause your preferred style is not the “kick in the door” style does not mean there should not be those instances in a game. It’s about the people your running the game FOR. Your players should be having fun. They may actually want to kick in the door and thump some skulls. If you take away action points (which is your right as it is YOUR game) then you take away part of what it is that makes the player characters truly outstanding compared to the rank and file NPCs. If the NPC could do the job why would they need the players who are supposed to be the heroes. I'd prefer to think of every encounter as life-or-death, not run-of-the-mill. Otherwise it starts feeling less like a fantasy game and more like superheroes (which I'm not interested in). And here is where you and I (and I’d wager a lot of other DMs) differ. EVERY encounter is not life and death. Some are meant to chip away at the characters, to drain their resources, and/or to be a plot device. I’m not trying to kill my players every time they get into a fight, bad rolls (even with Action Points) can do that with out my help. I throw challenges at them that if their lucky (with the die rolls), use their wits, skills, resources, spells, and ACTION POINTS correctly they could survive. As for the “superheroes” comment, you’re close but not quite there. The players aren’t superheroes (although at later levels you’d be hard pressed not to think so, action points or no) but in Eberron, IMO, they are supposed to be Pulp Heros. So they should not be Superman, or the Silver Surfer. But the could easily be Batman, Captain America, The Phantom, The Punisher, Doc Savage, Green Arrow, The Question, Sgt. Rock, and so many more. The players are individuals going up against incredible odds while using skills and abilities not possessed by most ordinary beings. If she gets disappointed and quits, find someone else to replace the crying baby - someone that's not hung up on winning all the time. I truly hope you do not treat your players like this. In my personal experience as a DM, I find it hard to juggle family, work, obligation with my house, and my desire to actually run a D&D game. The people I run my game for are also the same. So I make my games fun to keep them coming back. Does fun mean soft balling them? Heck no!! These guys, like myself, have a couple of decades of gaming experience under their belts. They want a challenge. But if I went around treating my players the way you treat this “cry-baby” I would not have any left players left. Now don’t get me wrong. It’s YOUR game. You run it like you want. Your also entitled to your opinion on action points. You don’t want to use them, then don’t. But you are depriving your players from using a mechanic, in the game because you think it makes things too easy for them. And in denying them that mechanic you are also denying them other feats as well as PrCs that are based around, and/or benefit from, action points. Ok I’m done. Stepping down from the soap box and exiting stage left… Wha…huh? Oh, sorry my OTHER left.
DoveArrow 12-02-05, 02:48 PM	As an experiment, give action points to the opposition and see how long PC spellcasters will like the enemy avoiding many of their best spells. Jay It's called the Heroic Spirit feat. It gives action points to your NPCs. Meanwhile, before you complain that the Heroic Spirit feat doesn't give NPCs as many action points as are available to PCs, think about the fact that NPCs don't have to reserve their action points for the next battle, because typically, there are no next battles (or if there are, there aren't that many). PCs, on the other hand, have to reserve their action points until they level. If they run out before then, well then that's just too bad. Anyway, I actually think giving action points to NPCs and not giving the PCs any might be very interesting in a horror campaign. In that kind of game, it should be much more challenging for the PCs to kill a bad guy, even if the bad guy is something as simple as a zombie. What I would recommend is don't think of action points so much as a game mechanic that unbalances the game. Think of them more as a storytelling device that helps you tell a story. Give the bad guys action points if you really want things to be tough, give the PCs action points if you want them to be super heroic, and don't give anyone action points if you want the game to have a more realistic and balanced feel. That's just my :twocents:
Good Agnostic 12-02-05, 02:54 PM	so it's no big deal that AP's were never used. If your PC's get teh fourth level and no one has used an AP, then you should think about encouraging it. My guess, they will soon figure it out in individual ways. As a player, I have yet to level without having at least one unused action point. I fall on the conservative/use only to save the bacon side. Other players in my group start burning them right away and are usually at 0 AP's long before leveling. In any case, don't worry about it. Just review the rules on what AP's can be used for (ah, sweet stabalize) and remind the players before you start again. Welcome to Eberron!
a_psh 12-02-05, 09:00 PM	It's a game. She failed, so let her fail. This is what I meant by action points are for people that can't stand to fail. Everyone wants to succeed, so why do her desires alone allow her to warp probability (unless she's a Fatespinner ;))? Unless they're weighted, the dice are giving her the same probabilities of success and failure as anyone else with a similar build. That should be enough. If she gets disappointed and quits, find someone else to replace the crying baby - someone that's not hung up on winning all the time.First off, no one said there was any whining going on at all. Action points have the capacity to enhance the game both in terms of strategy and roleplaying. I'm generally bigger on both of those than I am on rolling dice. That's why, to me, they're a worthwhile addition to the game. If you're more interested in a different aspect of D&D or a style that significantly differs from Eberron's baseline, then, yes, they might not be good for your game. It is a matter of priorities, yes, but you can't simplify it down to "cry-babies" vs. mature gamers. You're effectively assuming that just because I let PCs roll a damn +1d6 to save themselves from instant death I'm also giving out +5 vorpal swords, fudge every roll so they can't fail, and never put them in any danger whatsoever. I don't. You're also assuming that, just because they're rolling that damn +1d6 sometimes, they want to have everything fall into their laps. Baseless. An action point is nothing more than a really weak moment of prescience (http://d20srd.org/srd/spells/momentofPrescience.htm), effectively: a way to specifically partially compensate for bad rolls when you really need to. Are PCs that use that spell to avoid death or land a particularly strategic blow just stupid cry-babies, too? Fundamentally, people play for fun. What's fun for different people varies. To me and the folks in my group, rolling dice to resolve the outcome of a particular action is a good resolution mechanic, but it's not inherently fun by itself. Thus, we see nothing wrong with a limited store of extra luck to use when your actual personal luck craps out on you. My players mostly like the strategic value of action points, and have used them to good roleplaying effect as well. If you have different priorities, maybe action points aren't for you. I'm not disputing that... ...However, now that you're introduced the whole "can't stand to fail" and "cry-baby" bits here, I feel like you're just slinging mud, and I'm not really a fan of that. Action points don't somehow separate the people who can deal with failure form those that can't. They don't suddenly Monty-Haul up your entire campaign. They don't suddenly make your players into whiny brats. They just add a few extra points to a few die rolls here and there (oh, and they power certain special feats and class abilities, too). You seem to be making a really big deal out of +1d6 or +(highest-die-of-2d6), as if it says something fundamental about the very spiritual character of the person playing. ... "Save-or-die" effects are actually the worst possible argument for why not to use action points, I think. Eberron is set up as a world where resurrection is a BIG DEAL. You die and you're probably staying dead. When a single roll is potentially character-ending, I'd rather give the PCs a little bit of wiggle to try and pull out (not that action points will save them anyway, most of the time: adding d6 or d8 to your d20 roll is certainly not guaranteed to pull it out form the gutter) than just kill them outright, because, frankly, they're probably staying dead when it happens. And the giant revolving door of characters really ruins things if you and your players are actually trying to have story and character development in the game. Now, I can either make res as easy as it is in the core books (unabashedly unfounded generalization time: "Any player who accepts a resurrection spell being cast on his PC is clearly just a cry-baby who's terribly afraid of failure, and any priest who's willing to cast it frivolously is a filthy munchkin! Any DM who even thinks to allow it without terrible consequences is coddling his players!" ), which I explicitly don't want to do, or I could use these nifty little point things to let the PCs try to walk away from it... sometimes; they certainly won't always make it, action points or not. All the danger is still there, people just spend a little bit less time twiddling their thumbs because their character died to a bodak right before a fighter one-hit-killed him ('nother thing about my game style: if you die, you're not getting a weird character you just made up spontaneously introduced in the middle of an adventure after another 15 minutes of play). (And, should it come to questions of rolling vs. not rolling for certain things: yes, I use point-buy and fixed hit points in my games, too, in case you're wondering.) * - I do actually believe 95% of this, effectively; I'm just willing to accept that it's a baseless and unfounded statement.
MarkB 12-03-05, 09:05 AM	I’m sorry but rolling a 1 is an automatic failure. Rolling a 6 may actually be a success when you factor in skill ranks magically enhancements and attribute bonuses. But even with all of that if you roll a 1 then you fail. I don’t care if you do have 10 ranks in Bluff, a Glibness spell, and a Charisma of 18 and the DC was only 20. You rolled a 1. You FAILED. So yeah that sounds like degrees of failure to me. Just on a technical note, this is not in fact the case. There is automatic success and failure on normal attack rolls and saving throws, but there is no automatic success or failure on skill checks, ability checks, or any opposed roll. So yes, you can make a successful Bluff check on a natural 1. I do agree, though, that there is a psychological difference between failing by a large margin and failing by a narrow margin. There is an inevitability to the former that leaves one, if not exactly content, at least resigned to the outcome. But failing by a mere couple of points just feels frustrating.
a_psh 12-03-05, 10:48 AM	I do agree, though, that there is a psychological difference between failing by a large margin and failing by a narrow margin. There is an inevitability to the former that leaves one, if not exactly content, at least resigned to the outcome. But failing by a mere couple of points just feels frustrating.Seconded. I think it's a mixture of "Y'know, if I just crafted a +2 cloak of resistance instead of this +2 headband of intellect, like I was thinking about doing, I would be walking away from this right now" and a number-based subconscious thing.
jer1_1 12-03-05, 05:48 PM	thanks for all the suggestions, they have definitely helped my situation. and the debate was good too. its interesting to get a taste of what everyone else thinks about the new concepts introduced in eberron. personally i think action points were the part about eberron that i was most excited about. i think it totally gives your players a chance to rise above and beyond whats expected. its great to see a players face light up when they pull off something with an action point that they never believed they could do. i agree with the idea that its more opportunity for success which could make the game boring for some, but i think it balances the setting because it seems easier to fail in eberron. its near impossible to resurrect, and most wizards and crafters are too low level to actually make truly powerful items so it seems pc's have to rely more on their skills, and role playing abilities rather than all the magical crap i throw at them. and i think action points are what gives them that little bit of an edge and keeps things interesting. i'm finding it very refreshing and i'm always excited to dm the next session.