Here's an idea for a variant Hero Point system you can use to make them more "personalized".
At the start of your campaign during character creation, ask each of your players to select a weakness for their character. This should be a weakness that potentially gets them into trouble.
Here are a few example weaknesses:
Discourage weaknesses that directly inconvenience other PCs, of course.
Now, give the PCs 2 Hero Points per level instead of one (as if they had Blood of Heroes), and give them the option of spending a Hero Point to gain a +4 to AC until their next turn, or +2 if they've seen the enemy's attack roll already. However, they may only spend one of these—the other is a reserve point.
From now on, whenever their PC undertakes a less-than-perfect course of action that seems linked to their weakness, such as exploring an ominous cave they didn't need to explore (curiosity) or waiting to attack until the enemy's weapons are drawn, allow them the option of spending their bonus Hero Point until the end of the combat. If they choose not to spend it, they can wait until a future combat to deploy it.
In the case of "stupid build choices", use your own judgement. If it's a "stupid" build choice that will later get way better through feats or multiclassing, it shouldn't count. If it later becomes less severe, such as using a low-damage dice weapon (which matters less and less as you gain levels), encourage them to choose a new weakness when the time comes. Regardless, only open up the reserve point when it is clear that the stupid build choice is going to or has hurt them in the current combat.
This house rule encourages PCs to play the character they want to play, even if it's not strictly optimal.
Thoughts? Does this rule go too far, or not far enough?
The idea here isn't to give people penalties, it's to encourage them to roleplay "dangerously". A paradox I struggle with is enjoying a hardcore game while still wanting players to take risks and occasionally allow themselves to enter a scenario in a non-optimal but cinematic manner. They get paranoid, which is funny, but then it gets a bit boring. ;P
I currently have a group running through Reign of Winter as a P8 campaign with mythic tiers, and I told them right off the bat that the campaign would be hardmode and they would need their hero points to survive. They took that to heart. I've been rewarding them with hero points for doing things that fit their characters really well, and they've been pushing really hard as a group to just go nuts and do stuff like:
"I WANT TO JUMP ON THE DRAGON AND RIDE HIM LIKE A SURFBOARD WHILE PUNCHING HIM! CAN I?!"
"Hero point."
"BOOOOYAAAHH!!!"
It doesn't always happen, but I've found making sure the players know that hero points are there for them to try and do things like that helps a bunch. I also opened up the rules a little bit. Normally (as per the APG) a player can spend 2 hero points to prevent death. I went with that, but also threw in a use where they can spend 1 hero point to prevent death if they can make a Fort saving throw equal to 15 + any negative HP beyond their Con score. So if the guy with 10 Con hit -15 with an attack, he has to make a Fort DC 20 check and spend a hero point. This has made them a little bit riskier, but I threw it in there to encourage the gnarly mythic stuff.
I like your idea, but I don't think you necessarily have to make it a strictly defined set of rules like that. Hero points are, at the end of the day, GM fiat. If you're fairly liberal with them when players do what you're aiming at and encourage their use I've noticed they respond. If they want to do something that has a low chance of success, remind them that they can use a hero point, and if it's something that their character could or would try then be especially encouraging. I've also started letting players basically use hero points to get hero points. If you want a super cinematic, action-movie, less-than-optimized experience, then allowing for that helps keep players from hoarding them.
I think tying it to drawbacks is flavorful, so I'd say go with that and dole them out a little more freely.
If you please, most of the sample weaknesses above translate to effective penalties in the first place: Hesitant to kill may force a [Shaken] condition or require him to deal nonlethal damage only.
Makes poor decisions may be replicated by poor positioning (or even better) a constant [Shaken] condition as well.
Again, this isn't exactly what I meant. The house rule is meant to address tactics, not rolls. Bad tactics will kill an adventuring group way quicker than any -2 ever will.
Puna'chong, you make some great points. How do you mean by "freely"? Do you mean I should go with the restrictions, but give more points out?
How do you mean by "freely"? Do you mean I should go with the restrictions, but give more points out?
Yeah, make it clear what you're expecting hero points to be doing in your campaign, and encourage that use by letting them have chances to use the points in that manner. In my campaign I make an effort to leave that heroic carrot dangling about once a session. You don't have to railroad them into making it the GM's action movie, but let them know that if they really play up background drawbacks in a risky encounter or they do something super ballsy they'll be rewarded and you'll be willing to work with them, provided luck is in their favor.
It really comes down to the tone. If you want a more gritty feel, then hero points should come few and far between and be there for emergencies. If you want a big blockbuster campaign with insane fantasy action all over the place, you'll want to encourage their use by giving them out. Players naturally hoard--it's like rule #1: keep everything--so when they have something as precious as hero points that have "YOU CAN'T DIE IF YOU HAVE TWO OF ME!!" literally written on them, they'll be reluctant to use them.
Sounds a lot like the "Victory points" Mutants and Masterminds gives when a character's Complications come into play.
Neat system.
My group borrows a concept from 3.5's Eberron called action points, but we do them quite differently.
I give my players 3 action points per gaming session. They are worth 1d6 added to any d20 roll, among a few other potential uses (like stabilizing at negative HP or adding a small bonus to spell DCs). I also tell them that the riskier and more awesome the narrative is when they use these points, the more lenient I am with the outcome. They get a bonus 1d6 on the effort, and if they use it for something that helps make the game fun, then I generally let it happen.
I have tried this without action points, but the idea of having a finite resource that is limited, but not too precious (like hero points) seems to have increased the risk taking. I am considering changing the 1d6 to a flat +4, but we haven't played in months.