Over here the discussion of the fighter's glass jaw (his uniquely weak will save) wandered into the area of action points. Now, many people hate them, because of the perceived "mickey mousing" of the game. But what if quantities were sharply limited (say 1 per session or adventure)? And then, the piece-de-resistance, give the fighter as a class a bunch more of them. Let's look at the ramifications:
1. High-level martial classes with iterative attacks roll dice more than spellcasters, as a general rule (and thus have more of a need for action points). Barbarians, however, also have scaling rage benefits, and paladins and rangers have spells and scaling class abilities. Fighters have... baseline feats; nothing that really scales. But action points do, both in quality (add higher bonus), and in quantity if the fighters' reserves grow proportionately greater as they level up.
2. Fighters have serious mobility problems. What if they could spend action points for additional movement, even while full attacking? This alone could resolve discussion in several threads.
3. Blocking: tripping and grappling are very difficult in Pathfinder. But with a reserve of action points, you could improve your chances to succeed when it most counts.
4. This is my favorite: for people who don't like action points, that's fine. Subtract 1/session from everyone, so that all classes except the fighter have ZERO. Fighters would still get some of them: a tactical resource of their own, like the wizard's spells, the monk's ki points, or the barbarian's rage points.
Thoughts?
The action point idea can solve quite a few potential problems. I'd be more inclined to give them out on a per-level basis rather than per adventure or per session basis, but I'd like to hear the pros and cons on that idea. The fighter could definitely use more of them as well, letting him excel when he needs to do so to survive.
|
Per session means having to spend them on a given night or they're gone. This often means using them for suboptimal conditions or you're going to lose them. That can be a bit of a problem, but I think its outweighed by the advantage of actually being able to use your action points and not hording them. It also means having some available in the event that trouble arises. This works best with fewer points.
Per level means that you don't have to spend your points early and can save them for closer to the end of an adventure. This also means that they'll likely be saved for boss-fights and such, significantly changing the way they play out (I've seen plenty of SAGA edition to know that); or they'll be horded and not used so that many points will be wasted at a given level. The con here is outweighed by the fact that it gives players a lot of versatility when they want it, but not so much that it dominates the game. This works better with more points.
Both have merit, just thought I'd spell out some of the things I foresee and have seen.
Regards,
Studpuffin
P.S. Can you change the title to something less... obvious? ;p
|
|
The action point idea can solve quite a few potential problems. I'd be more inclined to give them out on a per-level basis rather than per adventure or per session basis, but I'd like to hear the pros and cons on that idea. The fighter could definitely use more of them as well, letting him excel when he needs to do so to survive.
I like how the action points are currently designed in d20 Modern and Eberron, i.e., 5 + 1/2 Lvl (or 6 + 1/2 Lvl for Prestige Classes). We haven't seem them abused or imbalance the game play. Some people hang on to them for the last moment. Others spend them up real fast. Some hardly even use them.
Actually the more I read on the action points the more I'm persuaded that they are a good idea. However would this add another layer into updating existing adventures?
|
Actually the more I read on the action points the more I'm persuaded that they are a good idea. However would this add another layer into updating existing adventures?
Only if NPCs get them as well - what if they are PC only? No updating needed then.
I presume that PCs created above level 1 only get one levels worth of action points/dice? I'm in favour of per session rather than per level myself, but that thought just occurred.
I'm stil at the per day point myself, starting with only 1 and slowly building up to maybe 4~5.
A level can be a lot or a little, a session could have nothing to spend them on, or ten fights in a row, a day however gives a finite number that the player can get his head round and use without worrying if he is being too frivilous with them, plus it matches every other ability refresh rate (with the sole and silly exception of quivering palm).
I'm torn on the NPC issue. On the one hand I don't like giving PC's resources that an NPC will never have access too, on the other hand NPC's generally don't have as much to spend such resources on and can blow them faster than the players can. Possibly just giving the DM a pool is one option, however DMs can just fudge things anyways if they feel the need to so maybe it's not such an issue.
|
|
I'm stil at the per day point myself, starting with only 1 and slowly building up to maybe 4~5.
A level can be a lot or a little, a session could have nothing to spend them on, or ten fights in a row, a day however gives a finite number that the player can get his head round and use without worrying if he is being too frivilous with them, plus it matches every other ability refresh rate (with the sole and silly exception of quivering palm).
I'm torn on the NPC issue. On the one hand I don't like giving PC's resources that an NPC will never have access too, on the other hand NPC's generally don't have as much to spend such resources on and can blow them faster than the players can. Possibly just giving the DM a pool is one option, however DMs can just fudge things anyways if they feel the need to so maybe it's not such an issue.
What if it was only given to characters with PC levels? The NPC classes don't necessarily need action points, but NPC's with PC levels probably should gain some. The only other option is to possibly only give NPCs 1 and only 1.
I think that if this is done via levels then you don't get to keep previously gained APs when you level up. You only get that level's worth of AP to spend for the duration of the level. If this is the case there should probably be a mechanism for recovering an AP.
Again, (and I realize i'm beating a dead horse here) but in SAGA the villains get the same number of force points as anyone else. That means that they can blow through an encounter using all of their force points if they're not meant to show up again. This will make encounters more deadly and really skew CR unless their APs are curtailed in some fashion. Of course, we're talking about a lower number of points than SAGA allows anyway so we have yet to see if there's a problem. Just a forewarning though.
>:D Muwhahahaha
Per session means having to spend them on a given night or they're gone.
Not if you allow them to carry over between sessions, as I do. Just don't give out a lot of them (1/session is fine, let them accumulate if desired). I personally feel that the 5 + 1/2 level advocated in the SRD is too many.
@ Matthew -- trading an action point for a move, if useable as an immediate action (like, you see your friend about to get cut down and you interpose yourself in front of a charging enemy) would go along way towards making the fighter a lot better at his job. Your other suggestions look good, too.
@ okOyA -- D'OH! You're right. Too late now, though, unless we start a new thread there.
@ All -- adding one or more points to a BBEG can make the fight a lot more memorable. This is a great option for any DM who's ever been inclined to fudge a result so the "scary" villain doesn't go down like a chump in the first round. 1 action point/4 levels or so works out OK; more and the "nova villain" issues are magnified.
|
|
Per session means having to spend them on a given night or they're gone.Not if you allow them to carry over between sessions, as I do. Just don't give out a lot of them (1/session is fine, let them accumulate if desired). I personally feel that the 5 + 1/2 level advocated in the SRD is too many.
I suggest a capstone then of half your level as the maximum you could accumulate (this might actually be too many). They're meant to be spent, not horded.
I suggest a capstone then of half your level as the maximum you could accumulate (this might actually be too many). They're meant to be spent, not horded.
That sounds pretty reasonable.
I'm stil at the per day point myself, starting with only 1 and slowly building up to maybe 4~5.
A level can be a lot or a little, a session could have nothing to spend them on, or ten fights in a row, a day however gives a finite number that the player can get his head round and use without worrying if he is being too frivilous with them, plus it matches every other ability refresh rate (with the sole and silly exception of quivering palm).
I'm torn on the NPC issue. On the one hand I don't like giving PC's resources that an NPC will never have access too, on the other hand NPC's generally don't have as much to spend such resources on and can blow them faster than the players can. Possibly just giving the DM a pool is one option, however DMs can just fudge things anyways if they feel the need to so maybe it's not such an issue.
DMs can fudge, but players often know when fudging is happening. At least they do if the DM fudges often.
Unfortunately, many DMs fudge the same things over and over, session after session.
For example, if a PC mage has Hold Person, and the campign has lots of encounters where there is a humanoid BBEG susceptible to holding, it seems those Hold Person spells never affect those guys. Ever.
I'm to the point that when I'm playing such a spellcaster, I never, ever, cast Hold Person (or similar spells) on the encounter's BBEG - I know those guys will make 99% of their saves. It's wasting my time.
Yeah, that's metagaming, my mage would absolutely think those guys are prime targets for such spells.
But I don't want to waste my character's limited resources casting spells that the DM won't allow to succeed because it's anticlimactic, or uncinematic, for his BBEG to stand around waiting for a coup de grace.
I really resent that, actually. I wish DMs wouldn't do that.
Yet, when I DM, I find myself doing tht too, from time to time, although I am sensitive to my players and realize I can't destroy their casters' usefulness fundging all the time. Often, I will explain beforehand that "this guy looks clever, and fairly powerful. Odds are, he has a decent Will save. And your mage knows this, and he also knows this type of spell works much better on the weak-minded, like those henchmen over there. You're likely going to burn your spell for nothing if you cast on the BBEG." Then, when the PC decides to cast in on the BBEG anyway, I ask the player if he wants to roll the d20 for the BBEG's save. If he gets a crappy roll, I let the spell work (because it should). If he gets a good roll, the BBEG saves. If the roll is mediocre, I usually let the BBEG save, even if he really failed it by a point or two - the player won't know this, but he will believe the BBEG has a better Will save than he really does.
Action Points for the NPCs solve this issue, somewhat.
At least now I can say "Your spell seems to work, and the BBEG's eyes glaze over for a moment, but then he seems to find hidden reserves of willpower and breaks free of your spell."
The players all react as you would expect - they realize this BBEG is important enough to have Action Points, just like the PCs do, and they don't blame me or resent me for fudging anything at all.
Great points DM_Blake.
Actually the more I look at this the less I mind the idea of it being fighter only, so long as it doesn't turn him into a complete run over every encounter type. If he can spend reserve points of some kind to get an extra move action (even as an immediate action), get extra attacks, or ignore a miss chance here or there it doesn't hurt my feelings at all if my wizard can't do the same. If he can also rely on this training to help him with a will save every now and then, I still think this is a better solution than just throwing the good will save at the fighter (which I disagree with completely, unless the wizard gets a good fortitude save for the exact same reasons).
Even in this case though, I still think 'per day' would be better than 'per session' or 'per level' as it is more concrete on how you get your benefit... and gives the fighter a reason beyond sheer exhaustion to actually rest.
Instead of 'action points' though (if these are going to be fighter only) lets call it 'martial training' and let them pick from various effects kind of like the barbarian does for rage powers.
|
I would add three effects to the list of action point uses in the SRD:
Extra move You may spend one action point to move your full normal movement rate as a swift action. (Kieth, does that supply the extra movement you wanted?)
Mitigate death After failing a save vs. a death effect, you may spend 1 action point to mitigate the effect. Instead of dying, the character is at -10 hit points and stable.
Alternate point usage A monk or barbarian may convert 1 action point to 1 ki or rage point.
Do those make sense?
In my Eberron games, a death effect can be avoided with an action point, but it has to be spent in lieu of rolling the save.
I also allow extra uses of abilities with an action point.
The Fleet feat that Jason introduced would help fighters. Any fighter without Boots of Haste and a means of flight at upper levels is just plain silly.
|
.
.
.
.
As of right now my inclinations are:
- Use the X/day calculation for AP. (for the reasons given by Abraham)
- No carry over of AP from one day to the other. (see next point)
- Keep the number of available AP/day low. (see below *)
- GMs need AP as well. (for the reasons given by DM_Blake and Kirth)
* If we are talking about using AP exactly like they are listed in the SRD, then the number of AP available per day must be kept low IMO. The reason I have not used AP in my games before is due to my general dislike for most of the ways you can use them. If AP were changed to something simple like a choice between forcing a re-roll or a straight +20 modifier (or maybe +1d20) to any d20 roll, then I would more likely to use them (and to allow more of them per day). I would prefer to see AP behave more like a one shot "heroic action" or "lucky save" then just adding another tactic and resource to track.
Wait! What? Are we talking about these being a fighter class only feature? Not AP for all, but MartialPoints for the fighter only?
My understanding is that question is part of this discussion too. Do we want this at all, do we want it for just the fighter or for everyone, and just what do we want these 'action points' to do.
Excellent points, all. I find myself in complete agreement with Abraham -- "per day" action points for fighters, with a list of definite options, would eliminate a lot of the problems with the fighter. Blake's point still stands as well, though -- sometimes that BBEG sorcerer may need fudging, and it's nice to have limitations and mechanics to add legitimacy to the DM's doing so -- action points are an easy way to provide that. So maybe everyone gets 1 action point per day (lost at the end of the day if not used), and fighters get like 1/2 class level/day instead (per Stidpuffin's suggested cap). Effects might include (all immediate actions unless otherwise stated):
I'm also inclined to make a new feat that gives you 1 additional action point per day, so that BBEGs who need more than one can get two of them without violating the existing system.
|
|
My understanding is that question is part of this discussion too. Do we want this at all, do we want it for just the fighter or for everyone, and just what do we want these 'action points' to do.
It isn't a problem for me. I just didn't realize we were looking at making it a fighter class feature. I think it should be available to all, but maybe that fighters get a bonus number of AP (or whatever they are called).
I would still want to keep the numbers of available AP fairly low. I still want to see them as the "hand of fate" interceding at some opportune moment to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat rather than another resource to be leveraged.
|
|
So maybe everyone gets 1 action point per day (lost at the end of the day if not used), and fighters get like 1/2 class level/day instead (per Stidpuffin's suggested cap).
My suggestion wasn't just for fighters, it was for carrying points over from different sessions.
If we go with how your describing application now then my suggestion would be that the fighter get 3 action points, rogue and bard gain 2 total, and everyone else get 1. 1/2 level per day at level 20 is far too many a difference, and action points are pretty powerful. 1/2 class level is just too good for dolling them out.
|
|
Can we cram this idea down into 1-2 paragraphs? Something that could be shoved into a "DM's Option" sidebar, or another relevant chapter?
Probably not, but a half a page might be doable realistically. You'd need the "meaty bits" described most importantly. They'll take up the most room, and then a how, when and where they're usable description. That shouldn't take too much.
Is half a page too much?
|
|
I'd prefer to not have many of the feat interactions with APs, they seem kinda wonky. Might as well use the AP to just boost your AC instead. Adding up to a d6 for a round doesn't seem too overly powerful and would save a lot of space in a write up instead of dealing with so many defense feats.
@ Matthew Hooper:
I thought Jason decided to get rid of Rage Points...
|
|
A level can be a lot or a little, a session could have nothing to spend them on, or ten fights in a row, a day however gives a finite number that the player can get his head round and use without worrying if he is being too frivilous with them, plus it matches every other ability refresh rate (with the sole and silly exception of quivering palm).
I'm torn on the NPC issue. On the one hand I don't like giving PC's resources that an NPC will never have access too, on the other hand NPC's generally don't have as much to spend such resources on and can blow them faster than the players can. Possibly just giving the DM a pool is one option, however DMs can just fudge things anyways if they feel the need to so maybe it's not such an issue.
Do you have the Eberron Campaign Setting? It does a great job of handling this issue.
First - only special NPCs should gets Action Points . . . and for those - there's actually a feat that opens them up to having action points. (They get 3.)
Second - not sure where I read this - but I recall a balanced level involving only a set number of encounters. As this balances out, the 5 + 1/2 Class Level (or 6 + 1/2 Class Level w. Prestige Classes) really doesn't boil down to that many.
In my games, I've found this easy to follow and not imbalanced.
|
|
- An action point lets you add 1d6 to any d20 roll. Rolls altered by an action point are never automatic failures.
Do we want to keep the part from the SRD where higher-level characters roll multiple d6 and keep the highest? I think that as it is a 'keep the highest' rather than a sum then it doesn't overpower things. Another option would be 1d4 at level 1-7 1d6 at 8-15 and 1d8 for >15.
Do we allow players to spend multiple action points on the same roll (I'd say yes) and do they have to declare the number of dice before rolling (I'd say no).
So the BBEG targets a fighter with a Will save. He rolls a natural 8 and doesn't think that will save. He rolls an action dice and gets a 2 - still rather low. He weighs up the look on the DM's face and adds another dice getting a 6. He tells the DM the total and the DM breaks his silence and tells him he saved.
|
|
Do we want to keep the part from the SRD where higher-level characters roll multiple d6 and keep the highest? I think that as it is a 'keep the highest' rather than a sum then it doesn't overpower things. Another option would be 1d4 at level 1-7 1d6 at 8-15 and 1d8 for >15.
I think the multiple dice rolls will work, except I can only think of one circumstance similar and that is rolling for stats. Either way it seems to work, but i'd stick with the SRD for simplicity sake.
Do we allow players to spend multiple action points on the same roll (I'd say yes) and do they have to declare the number of dice before rolling (I'd say no).
No multiple spendings of an action point, and we should stick with a limit of 1 per round per character. I think I gotta hand it to the SRD on this one also.
So the BBEG targets a fighter with a Will save. He rolls a natural 8 and doesn't think that will save. He rolls an action dice and gets a 2 - still rather low. He weighs up the look on the DM's face and adds another dice getting a 6. He tells the DM the total and the DM breaks his silence and tells him he saved.
This is total meta-game <insert snarky comment>. However, I don't see a problem with rolling each dice gained from an action point in order.
|
|
Do we allow players to spend multiple action points on the same roll (I'd say yes) and do they have to declare the number of dice before rolling (I'd say no).No multiple spendings of an action point, and we should stick with a limit of 1 per round per character. I think I gotta hand it to the SRD on this one also.
There are going to be times when it is obvious that 1 action dice/point isn't going to cut it. What do you see as the problem with allowing a player to spend more than one at a time? My opinion is that it gives them the chance to pull off the one-in-a-million lucky shot at the right time.
This is total meta-game <insert snarky comment>. However, I don't see a problem with rolling each dice gained from an action point in order.So the BBEG targets a fighter with a Will save. He rolls a natural 8 and doesn't think that will save. He rolls an action dice and gets a 2 - still rather low. He weighs up the look on the DM's face and adds another dice getting a 6. He tells the DM the total and the DM breaks his silence and tells him he saved.
Yep, but action points/dice are entirely meta-game. You'd only spend one when you don't think that the rules are going to allow you to succeed with what you have.
From some SG-1 games, I've some happy memories of actually seeing sweat bead on a players face after they had spent an action dice to boost a poor save at a critical moment in the game and were wondering whether to spend another dice (their last) to make sure. It was a great moment in the game for everyone. In the end, they risked it, were sucessful, and had what turned out to be a cruicial action dice left for the last scene.
My opinion is that we should allow players to use as many action dice as they have on a roll, but limit the total number of dice that they have at any one time drastically - certainly under 5.
|
|
There are going to be times when it is obvious that 1 action dice/point isn't going to cut it. What do you see as the problem with allowing a player to spend more than one at a time? My opinion is that it gives them the chance to pull off the one-in-a-million lucky shot at the right time.
APs are pretty powerful, and allowing more than one to be spend changes the mechanics too much in my opinion. There is nothing worse than adding more and more effects basically for free to charge up things to the point that they become broken. If not one (which is the best number in my opinion) then there should be a very low limit in the number usable in a round.
If I wanted too I could improve a spell, then tumble with up to six on that check, while spending another point to recover the spell. Sure I spent three points, but its too much power and its abusive.
Yep, but action points/dice are entirely meta-game. You'd only spend one when you don't think that the rules are going to allow you to succeed with what you have.
In that particular case you keep rolling because you're looking at the DM's face. Besides, if you get multiple dice you get to keep the highest roll. If you roll low and get a chance to roll again why wouldn't you take it? You cannot save the dice for later.
Limited meta-game is fine, but its just that: limited. You don't want to drag the player out of their character for too long to decide what you want to do as well. This is an RPG, not Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.
From some SG-1 games, I've some happy memories of actually seeing sweat bead on a players face after they had spent an action dice to boost a poor save at a critical moment in the game and were wondering whether to spend another dice (their last) to make sure. It was a great moment in the game for everyone. In the end, they risked it, were sucessful, and had what turned out to be a cruicial action dice left for the last scene.
You know I don't like SoD or SoS spells, but even here this is too much. This is an auto win button. If you can spend so many to actually succeed and over kill, then why wouldn't you? This is abusive IMHO.
My opinion is that we should allow players to use as many action dice as they have on a roll, but limit the total number of dice that they have at any one time drastically - certainly under 5.
5 is way too high. The shift in modifiers by adding just one or two is pretty impressive in D&D/Pathfinder already, but adding up to six is incredibly powerful for what amounts to a free modifier. On top of that you get to reroll the d6's at higher levels, meaning that the average roll here may still amount to 3.5, but its more likely you'll end up with a 4 at the very least. Allowing this kind of power to run rampant will change the game too much.
If we're going to allow more than one action point then we'll need to start changing the way encounters work. There will be a definitive power creep that will make encounters too easy and this will make DMs have to throw harder challenges for PCs to deal with, but then once they run out of APs the characters will be in over their heads. Limiting it to just one allows you to do something cool during your turn (or possibly on another turn if you don't spend it right away) without changing the encounter dynamics too much.
5 is way too high. The shift in modifiers by adding just one or two is pretty impressive in D&D/Pathfinder already, but adding up to six is incredibly powerful for what amounts to a free modifier. On top of that you get to reroll the d6's at higher levels, meaning that the average roll here may still amount to 3.5, but its more likely you'll end up with a 4 at the very least. Allowing this kind of power to run rampant will change the game too much.
I absolutely want to change the way the game works, and drastically, with respect to the fighter, because at 15th level it's an NPC class. Everyone else can be limited to 1 action point, or zero for all I care. The proposal is to make any more than that a Fighter class feature, with the number of points (and perhaps their usefulness) scaling by class level. "Incredibly powerful" is what the class needs, because from 2nd all the way through 19th level, the fighter gets absolutely nothing that any other 1st level character doesn't have access to -- viz. feats -- he just gets more of them. That's fine at low levels, but from 12th - 19th, it just doesn't cut it -- the fighter is no better than an NPC class then.
If the same mechanic can reduce -- or at least provide solid guidelines for -- DM fudging of NPC rolls, well, that's an added bonus I won't turn down.
Well I won't say that the pathfinder fighter is an NPC class, but I do think a little extra wouldn't hurt them either.
Personally I think 5 points a day at level 20 would be fine for the fighter. If everyone else gets them I would probably limit it to around 3 a day (possibly giving the fighter a total of 8 at level 20 then).
|
|
I absolutely want to change the way the game works, and drastically, with respect to the fighter, because at 15th level it's an NPC class. Everyone else can be limited to 1 action point, or zero for all I care.
I mean during a given round, not total. I'm cool with giving the fighter more APs than other classes. What I'm not cool with is letting APs stack, be used too often, and abusing what is meant to be a patch.
|
|
Sorry, not a limit of 5 on any given roll, no more than 5 available points per character.
What I was trying (poorly) to explain is that I don't have a problem with a character burning multiple points on a single save roll if that would use up (almost) all of the points they have available. An average of +3.5 isn't going to make enough of a difference to a save at higher level.
Perhaps the multiple dice and take the highest bumps that high enough to remove my concern, but I can't do binomial statistics before coffee on a sunday. Anyone want to quote the average for 3d6 take the highest?
I should also mention that I see action points as making the game more 'heroic' rather than just as a fix for the fighter, although I think that they accomplish that quite well.
I mean during a given round, not total. I'm cool with giving the fighter more APs than other classes. What I'm not cool with is letting APs stack, be used too often, and abusing what is meant to be a patch.
Ah! Now I understand. Cool.
I'm on the fence about multiple uses per round. Like, maybe if there were a way to do cool stuff with 2+ points that wasn't game-breaking, something non-numerical maybe... trying to think of a good example of something tiptoeing at the back of my mind. Like, say you could spend 2 action points to force a nearby summon monster attempt to roll for the monster that's summoned, instead of getting to pick one... just a totally random example off the top of my head (it would be a specific case of some general application), but one that wouldn't be used unless (a) you had a pretty good idea what the bad guy was up to and (b) didn't mind burning 2/5 of your action points to stymie it.|
|
I mean during a given round, not total. I'm cool with giving the fighter more APs than other classes. What I'm not cool with is letting APs stack, be used too often, and abusing what is meant to be a patch.Ah! Now I understand. Cool.
I'm on the fence about multiple uses per round. Like, maybe if there were a way to do cool stuff with 2+ points that wasn't game-breaking, something non-numerical maybe... trying to think of a good example of something tiptoeing at the back of my mind. Like, say you could spend 2 action points to force a nearby summon monster attempt to roll for the monster that's summoned, instead of getting to pick one... just a totally random example off the top of my head (it would be a specific case of some general application), but one that wouldn't be used unless (a) you had a pretty good idea what the bad guy was up to and (b) didn't mind burning 2/5 of your action points to stymie it.
See, now something like that is not so bad. Its a pretty creative use really, and one I wouldn't have thought of (quickly at least, cause who knows...). Multi-point costs can be okay, I just don't like the idea of "I boost my Will Save, now I boost my Will again, and I'll spend one to act out of turn to move over here."
You know, in SAGA (I know I should shut up already) there were two kinds of points. There is the basic Force Point, which is essentially an action point. Then there is the Destiny Point, which allows you to do all kinds of crazy stuff like auto-crit without rolling, completely negate a hit once the roll's been revealed, Take a new turn (but switching initiatives to where you are)... They recommended giving these out once per level. I ended up fiating this to whenever they did something suitably heroic (or villainous... sigh), while I ran the WotC free campaign.
I also hate them with a passion because they are "I win buttons". I could have a low-level PC spend a destiny point along side a powerful weapon and just blow a villain to pieces, but if said villain had a destiny then he could negate the hit and leave the player stunned. This level of game changers should really be avoided in my opinion.
|
|
Multi-point costs can be okay, I just don't like the idea of "I boost my Will Save, now I boost my Will again, and I'll spend one to act out of turn to move over here."
I'd say that you only get one use of action points per round - if you boost a save you can't then move out of turn. I'd personally be ok with someone burning all of their remaining action points into an attempt to avoid 1 effect that they wouldn't normally be able to do so, but that should be it.