While I was initially anti-Action Point, I've changed my mind after using them for a while. There are a handful of Action-Point oriented feats that go along with them (like rolling a d8 instead of d6, or getting extra points, or using them for things other than adding to a roll). That give characters (of any class) another option to spend feats on, which extends replayability and increases differentiation between characters.
I also enjoy being able to use Action Points for NPCs when I'm running a game. I roll everything in the open so it's nice to have a legal way to 'fudge' the important rolls.
EDIT: I do feel that it is important for (heroic) NPCs to have access to Action Points just as characters do. A level playing field is important to keeping the game 'fair'. If the players have undue advantage over the competition, it belittles their achievments and robs them of the glory of an honest victory.
NO, Absolutely do NOT make action points a standard rule in Pathfinder. Preferably keep them out of the game entirely. As a GM, I would be robbed of way too many Player Character kills, and my players would be able to avert many foolish mistakes that would otherwise result in their demises with Action Points readily available.
NO, Absolutely do NOT make action points a standard rule in Pathfinder. Preferably keep them out of the game entirely. As a GM, I would be robbed of way too many Player Character kills, and my players would be able to avert many foolish mistakes that would otherwise result in their demises with Action Points readily available.
QFT
|
Originally I absolutely hated those Action Points, but after playing WFRP 2nd Edition which uses Fortune Points, I think they'd increase the "staying power" of the PCs more effectively than extra HPs. I'd like to have them in the game as re-rolls instead of flat bonuses, but I can understand why some people would like them to be optional.
|
|
Originally I absolutely hated those Action Points, but after playing WFRP 2nd Edition which uses Fortune Points, I think they'd increase the "staying power" of the PCs more effectively than extra HPs. I'd like to have them in the game as re-rolls instead of flat bonuses, but I can understand why some people would like them to be optional.
Uh in WFRP if you have a bad day and some bad rolls your limbs go flying off in different directions. That's completely different as they incorporate them just so you have a character to play more then a couple weeks.
I like them but they should probably be optional. A good compromise could be to make them into a general PF Feat or Feats while also allowing a fighter to acquire them with one of his fighter class bonus feats.
|
I like them but they should probably be optional.
I personally like using Action Points, and would like to see some kind of support for them in Pathfinder. That said, as long as they're not wound into other mechanics they can either be included in PRGP as optional rules or used by individual groups as-is from Unearthed Arcana (or Eberron, or wherever).
Hooray for options! ;)
|
|
I too believe that they should be included as an optional rule.
I use a variant of action points, and find them very valuable -- they blunt the cruelty of 'save or die' issues, and give the players some control over swingy encounters. I would definitely use them in any Pathfinder RPG game I play.
That being said, they are OGL, free on the web at www.d20srd.org, are well known amongst players out there, and given the page count of the Pathfinder RPG, the Paizo Crew is probably going to be sweating to fit everything from the PHB, DMG, and their own rules into that book. They could leave it out, knowing the community that wants Action Points will keep on using them.
Heck, they could upgrade the Action Points and offer them as a web supplement on the Paizo site after the rules come out ...
We use Luck Points in my regular campaign.
Every character gets 3 + Charisma Modifier luck points. If charisma is exceptionnaly low, it may result in bad luck points.
Every Luck Points is renewed at every gaming session.
A luck point is used to modify a die roll. If spent before the dice rolling, it counts as two points. If spent after the dice are rolled, it counts as one point.
In case of d100%, a luck point is worth 5%.
My players use them to increase damages, to avoid a critical fumble (is that a One on your d20? No, that's a two.) or to succeed a nasty saving throw (I use 3 luck points, so I roll my Fortitude save at +6).
It slightly increases character survival, and avoid, to some extend, save or die situations.
- Zorg
No, or optional at best. And they should not be a one-time resource. Do something like per day or per session.
|
If Paizo doesn't include them, I will by my own House Rule. I really like them. They aren't only for getting people out of scrapes, or adding upmf to a hit. But you can also use Action Points to mimic feats, recast the immediately previously cast spell. Action Points add to cinematic versatility. Some people hang on to them, some people spend them like crazy. For me - they stay.
I love them, but totally agree that they should be optional for those who don't want 'em.
I very much approve of more *options.* Anything that restricts the game from a certain segment of the playerbase is just alienating potential customers.
This is the quite possibly the single most insightful comment (regarding action points, skill points, or anything else) that I've seen so far on the Pathfinder rules discussion threads. Thank you.
I'm not allowing APs, but I might if they are a little more restricted.
Having DM'd for three years in Eberron, I have to say Action Points are hit or miss. At higher levels you get so many that as a DM, I was having to add 5 to each DC just to keep it a challenge. Especially in combat, it can turn the encounter from scary to scrapped very easily, since high ACs become much easier to hit reliably.
I'd be in favor of scaling APs back; give the players three or four at first level, then one more at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level, letting them refresh each level like normal. This also cuts back on some scary abilities like the Extreme Explorer PrC and other feats that allow you to spend APs for extra actions.
The AP is supposed to make actions more cinematic and thus used at critical times, but most of the time it just makes things munchy. Restricting them keeps the utility, but heightens their importance when used.
Another vote for optional.
Here also, make it a sidebar option. But don't include it in the core as a definite. Let's make PRPG about choices.
I personally love Action Points, they make the game more heroic. 4e AP look pretty lame with their per encounter mechanics tho.
|
|
D&D isn't as potentially lethal as WFRP or True20. I don't see the need for action points to save a character's bacon.
However, I love the idea of using action points for cool stuff. Want to leap off the balcony, swing across the room on the chandelier and drop on top of the BBEG, knocking him prone?
Use an action point and you just might pull it off.
|
I've used Action Points (UA style) for some time now, first implementing them in my Iron Heroes game. I tend to run tough encounters, so the Action Points can help the PCs survive, if only by the skin of their teeth.
APs do NOT help to counter player stupidity, which tends to be fatal regardless of rule sets. They do tend to help with that bit of bad luck that can befall any of us. They also help to stabilize when a PC is dying, a common condition in my campaign.
I'll continue to use them, whether it's an official rule, official option, or otherwise. For those that don't like APs, don't use 'em!