Action Points & Special Actions [Archive] - Wizards Community

Action Points & Special Actions [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Veggiesama
08-27-05, 05:59 PM Does anyone use the Action Point system as exactly described by Unearthed Arcana? I purchased Eberron recently and began wondering why that system had modified Action Point uses.

For instance, taking an extra attack or recalling spells through Action Points has been entirely removed, but activating another use of a class ability has been raised to 2 action points per use. Does anyone know why these changes were made? Is the default Action Point system unbalanced in some respects?

I see the "spell recall" ability to be massively overpowered compared to, for instance, "emulate feat", yet they both require only one action point.

I am considering adding action points to my non-Eberron campaign. I've also flirted with the idea of being able to improve DC's in the same manner that rolls can improved.

For instance, if you can add +1d6 to your character's Reflex save, why can't you add +1d6 to your character's Fireball DC (though if that Fireball was affecting multiple enemies... hmm... what if +1d6 vs a single character's Reflex save, even in area-effect spells)? Either way, it seems like casters don't get as many uses out of Action Points than straight warriors (if you look at just Eberron's AP system).

Also, what about AC? Could you declare you want to raise your AC by +1d6 against a single attack (unfortunately, both of these new uses would have to be made before the enemies' rolls were made).

Anyway, has anyone thought these things through better than I have? I would love suggestions and house rules.
Mind Rogue
08-27-05, 08:38 PM Well, one difference I believe is that in Eberron, you can spend multiple action points each round, where in d20 Modern and UA, you can only spend one Ap per round.

I also understand that they where considering using the "Players roll all the dice" variant in Eberron, but when combined with Ap, it ment that the players could simply bump up their AC and almost never get hit. Likewise, if you allowed them to bump the spell DCs, they would almost always work, when there needs to be some chance of failure to keep the game balanced.

Personally, with so many uses for action points, I'm actually considering and scaling back to just influencing die rolls and perhaps recall ability, since recalling spells offers quite a lot of extra power. Then again, my players almost always use them to stabalize, which may have a little influence on my idea of switching to the variant death and dying method.
Aurotuli
08-27-05, 09:19 PM From what I understand, action points (in WotC products) originated in d20 Modern. Then UA and Eberron came around and each developed action points based off the d20 Modern version - but modified to fit the wishes of the book's R/D designers. Those that created the Eberron setting had one idea for how action points could/should be used, and those that created the UA had a slightly different view.

Another major difference between the two, as I recall, is that in one of the books (cannot recall which) the Action Points gained per level stack with those gained upon attaining another level. In the other system the old are lost and replaced with the new level's Action Points. This aspect of the differences between the systems has been argued before (numerous times, in fact), and I believe one or two official (or semi-official) FAQs have stated one use over the other. To make it more complicated, I believe both sides have been stated as legit (albeit at different times and by different sources), although the setting (whether Eberron or not) and the DM make the final choice, of course.

I would suggest revamping the AP system to fit your system. After every campaign, take what you saw in the prior campaign and use it to make minor modifications to the pattern. Make certain to inform your players before a new campaign of any changes made since the last, and try to keep changes to a minimum each time so that the players are less likely to forget what is and is not possible with APs. It might also be a good idea to let them in on the process for adjusting the system after every campaign. After several campaigns you should have a system that well suits you and your players.

The simple fact is that what seems balanced to one may not be to another, what seems overpowered to one may not seem so bad to another. And the campaign setting can really make a difference. In an undead heavy campaign setting being able to regain a use of Turning is much more powerful than in an undead-sparse campaign setting. Similarly, what spells are known and typically used can make a great difference in how useful regaining a spell is.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Veggiesama 08-27-05, 05:59 PM	Does anyone use the Action Point system as exactly described by Unearthed Arcana? I purchased Eberron recently and began wondering why that system had modified Action Point uses. For instance, taking an extra attack or recalling spells through Action Points has been entirely removed, but activating another use of a class ability has been raised to 2 action points per use. Does anyone know why these changes were made? Is the default Action Point system unbalanced in some respects? I see the "spell recall" ability to be massively overpowered compared to, for instance, "emulate feat", yet they both require only one action point. I am considering adding action points to my non-Eberron campaign. I've also flirted with the idea of being able to improve DC's in the same manner that rolls can improved. For instance, if you can add +1d6 to your character's Reflex save, why can't you add +1d6 to your character's Fireball DC (though if that Fireball was affecting multiple enemies... hmm... what if +1d6 vs a single character's Reflex save, even in area-effect spells)? Either way, it seems like casters don't get as many uses out of Action Points than straight warriors (if you look at just Eberron's AP system). Also, what about AC? Could you declare you want to raise your AC by +1d6 against a single attack (unfortunately, both of these new uses would have to be made before the enemies' rolls were made). Anyway, has anyone thought these things through better than I have? I would love suggestions and house rules.
Mind Rogue 08-27-05, 08:38 PM	Well, one difference I believe is that in Eberron, you can spend multiple action points each round, where in d20 Modern and UA, you can only spend one Ap per round. I also understand that they where considering using the "Players roll all the dice" variant in Eberron, but when combined with Ap, it ment that the players could simply bump up their AC and almost never get hit. Likewise, if you allowed them to bump the spell DCs, they would almost always work, when there needs to be some chance of failure to keep the game balanced. Personally, with so many uses for action points, I'm actually considering and scaling back to just influencing die rolls and perhaps recall ability, since recalling spells offers quite a lot of extra power. Then again, my players almost always use them to stabalize, which may have a little influence on my idea of switching to the variant death and dying method.
Aurotuli 08-27-05, 09:19 PM	From what I understand, action points (in WotC products) originated in d20 Modern. Then UA and Eberron came around and each developed action points based off the d20 Modern version - but modified to fit the wishes of the book's R/D designers. Those that created the Eberron setting had one idea for how action points could/should be used, and those that created the UA had a slightly different view. Another major difference between the two, as I recall, is that in one of the books (cannot recall which) the Action Points gained per level stack with those gained upon attaining another level. In the other system the old are lost and replaced with the new level's Action Points. This aspect of the differences between the systems has been argued before (numerous times, in fact), and I believe one or two official (or semi-official) FAQs have stated one use over the other. To make it more complicated, I believe both sides have been stated as legit (albeit at different times and by different sources), although the setting (whether Eberron or not) and the DM make the final choice, of course. I would suggest revamping the AP system to fit your system. After every campaign, take what you saw in the prior campaign and use it to make minor modifications to the pattern. Make certain to inform your players before a new campaign of any changes made since the last, and try to keep changes to a minimum each time so that the players are less likely to forget what is and is not possible with APs. It might also be a good idea to let them in on the process for adjusting the system after every campaign. After several campaigns you should have a system that well suits you and your players. The simple fact is that what seems balanced to one may not be to another, what seems overpowered to one may not seem so bad to another. And the campaign setting can really make a difference. In an undead heavy campaign setting being able to regain a use of Turning is much more powerful than in an undead-sparse campaign setting. Similarly, what spells are known and typically used can make a great difference in how useful regaining a spell is.