Act Out of Turn: You can spend a hero point to take your turn immediately. Treat this as a readied action, moving your initiative to just before the currently acting creature. You may only take a move or a standard action on this turn.
Seems fairly clear what the use of the hero point would be in tabletop play. It would go something like this, I think.
DM: Okay, the BBEG casts a spell.
Player 1: *rolls Spellcraft* Crap, Energy Drain! We can't let him get that off, if it hits we'll be screwed
Player 2: You're right. DM, I'm going to spend a hero point to act out of turn and stop him!
The player spends a hero point, gets to use a readied action to attempt to interrupt the spellcasting, he either succeeds or fails, and either way his init is moved to before the BBEG's next turn.
However, our campaign is played over mIRC, and while it only takes a few moments for the DM to tell the players what's going on in tabletop, let them roll their Spellcraft checks in the middle of the bad guy's turn, and such, doing so over IRC would add minutes to every turn. Which would add up to a lot of time wasted in every session to cover for hero points that are not used in 90% of fights. So instead enemies' turns are usually resolved by the DM off-screen, and then the completed result is posted.
As such, when would you rule that a player has to declare their use of a hero point to interrupt a turn? Both would seem to have problems: if he must declare before the turn is posted, he will never know something bad is about to happen that he has to heroically interrupt, because we don't find out what our enemies are doing until they have finished doing it.
OTOH the DM rightly pointed out that a hero point is meant to interrupt an action in progress, not roll back one that has already been resolved.
So, in this circumstance, must a player declare their intention to use a hero point interrupt before the BBEG's turn, or can they do it afterward?
If anyone is curious about the scenario that brought this question up, read on
(At peril of minor SPOILERS for STAP chapter 6 (The Lightless Depths)
[21:40] <Einar> "No!" Einar lunges to stop their foe's attacks. (<- Player uses a hero point to interrupt the casting of the ray (And rolls a crit :D)
[21:49] <@Kain> His blade bites into the ancient's arm, sending the deadly beam discharging into the ground, where the city floor withers beneath the blast. He turns to Einar, his face a mask of rage. "You will regret this for all eternity."
To add specificity to the scenario, the question is fundamentally a choice between two options.
Option 1: A hero point is used to allow the character to interrupt actions taken by the foes.
Option 2: A hero point is used to allow the character to interrupt the initiative order and cut in front of foes.
For the scenario Coriat posits, would a hero point allow the character to, before Rakis-Ka has acted, go in front of him? Would it allow the character to observe defensive spellcasting and make an undeclared readied action attempt? Would it allow the character, after discovering the effects of a spell and its success, to then attack and disrupt said spell after the fact?
To answer Kain's question, readied actions interrupt actions, delayed actions interrupt the order. Hero points are as if it was a readied action. So it would allow the character to act before Rakis-Ka ("I ready an action to attack him at the start of his turn") which is effectively the same as delaying. It would allow the character to see the spellcasting ("I ready an action to hit him when he casts a spell") and attack. It would not allow him (normally) to see what the effects of the spell are and retroactively dispel it. However, given the limits of the format, I'd just let it roll back the action.
|
To answer Kain's question, readied actions interrupt actions, delayed actions interrupt the order. Hero points are as if it was a readied action.
This is more-or-less correct. Both interrupt the order.
So it would allow the character to act before Rakis-Ka ("I ready an action to attack him at the start of his turn") which is effectively the same as delaying.
This is not correct. Hero points act as if a readied action had been triggered. A readied action is triggered by an event that takes place, such as "I read to attack him if he casts a spell," as Bobson indicates below. I'm making the distinction that "at the start of his turn" is a game mechanic, not an event that takes place. In addition, readying an action gives you that one action which can interrupt the actions, mid-turn, of another character, whereas delaying cannot interrupt another character's action and gives the delaying character a full turn worth of actions.
It would allow the character to see the spellcasting ("I ready an action to hit him when he casts a spell") and attack. It would not allow him (normally) to see what the effects of the spell are and retroactively dispel it. However, given the limits of the format, I'd just let it roll back the action.
Agreed. Generally, the only readied action that allows response via identification of a spell is counterspelling. It gets kind of iffy were a readied action something like, "I ready to attack that guy if I'm told he's casting energy drain." Hero Points are a bit of an odd beast in this regard, in that they have greater flexibility than a normal readied action; they can effectively emulate any readied action that the character could have taken. Formally, it isn't clear to me that the wizard's Spellcraft check to identify the spell can be made as a reactive check that he can act on outside of his turn without counterspelling. But if that is an agreed use at the table, than it should be good to go.
Overall, I agree that some accommodation has to be made for the format, which the rules don't cover directly.
So then, would it be fair to run it under the following definition?
1. Players are told generic description of actions OOC that are being taken. "Undead boss is casting spell, demon is moving to attack the wizard."
2. Players determine (quickly) whether to interrupt this with hero points.
3. Using a hero point, they are allowed to perform something that they could have readied in response to this action.
4. They go, foe goes.
Because what happened in the game was considerably different, largely because we've not used hero points extensively. The foe's turn came up, he nailed the wizard with an energy drain for 6 negative levels, pulled off a quickened mass inflict spell on everyone involved and when that was revealed to the party, the interrupt effect was called for. I let it slide that time, but there is no way I want things to run that way all the time. There is no way that the same action would have been called if the wizard had taken 2 negative levels, or been missed entirely with the beam.
Perhaps you could use a "50/50"-chance version of the hero point use for such cases? "The energy drain hit for 6? I use a hero point to try to stop it!" "Okay, roll a die. You have a 50/50 chance to try to interrupt with a hero point."
That way you could narrate events like you use to, and players will have a chance to stop devastating effects, but it won't always work (emulating that sometimes they would have taken the risk of the energy drain missing or not being as effective).
|
|
So then, would it be fair to run it under the following definition?
Frankly, given the environment, I just plain wouldn't use Hero Points or would eliminate the option to use them as an interrupt. Normally, the GM knows what readied actions are available and manages the action flow based on that. It's already under pressure given the medium you're playing in, so why complicate it further by an optional rule? The inclusion of the optional rule is a choice. The adjudication of when it can be used is up to you. Streamline when it can be used or what it can be used for.
I'm aware that hero points is optional, I choose to use them so that I can further challenge my PCs. I don't have an issue switching up things OOC to give my players a chance to use them, I am just seeking clarification about as to the intention of the mechanic. If it is intended to interrupt initiative, actions, or completely reverse them. Upon listening to you and Bobson's breakdowns, I'm guessing it is intended to apply to the second of those options, and I'll likely end up figuring out how to run it more smoothly given some practice.
So then, would it be fair to run it under the following definition?
1. Players are told generic description of actions OOC that are being taken. "Undead boss is casting spell, demon is moving to attack the wizard."
2. Players determine (quickly) whether to interrupt this with hero points.
3. Using a hero point, they are allowed to perform something that they could have readied in response to this action.
4. They go, foe goes.
I think describing the enemies action shortly before resolving them is a good way to go, for the type of game you have.
Perhaps you make a secret spell craft roll for the PCs to check if they determine which spell is being cast? That way, you can give them the chance of spotting it, and making their choice of whether to interrupt or not on a more informed basis.
Letting them use it retroactively is going to be a pain. There is just no way that you can decide on it without a metagame concern (good or bad).
I'm aware that hero points is optional, I choose to use them so that I can further challenge my PCs. I don't have an issue switching up things OOC to give my players a chance to use them, I am just seeking clarification about as to the intention of the mechanic. If it is intended to interrupt initiative, actions, or completely reverse them. Upon listening to you and Bobson's breakdowns, I'm guessing it is intended to apply to the second of those options, and I'll likely end up figuring out how to run it more smoothly given some practice.
Actually, we were arguing for the first as the intent of the use of hero points - the second is just more practical in an IRC format where you can't interrupt someone mid-sentence. It's effectively the equivalent of the GM rolling a bunch of dice behind his screen, then announcing to the players "Ok, he cast a spell and did XYZ", and a player saying "I use a hero point to interrupt it". It's not reversing the action, it's retroactively allowing the player to insert himself where the GM didn't give him the opportunity at the time. There's a subtle difference there.
Hero points/readied actions don't necessarily interact with what the creature taking the turn is doing. "I ready an action to walk through that door if he starts casting a spell." "I ready an action to do a sneak attack as soon as my party's fighter moves into a flanking position." "I ready an action to channel positive energy against undead if he summons more skeletons." All are legitimate uses of ready which don't prevent the action from taking place - The first just means the caster has to target someone else, the second doesn't involve the enemy's turn at all (although it'd probably be more effective as a delay action), and the third doesn't happen until after his spell is cast (but before the skeletons act).
My suggestion is to follow Howie23's suggestion and not allow them as an interrupt.
You might want to consider changing that use of hero points to read "Act Out of Turn: You can spend a hero point to take your turn immediately. Treat this as a delayed action, moving your initiative to whenever you act. At least one creature must have acted since your last turn. You may take your full turn." This makes using them much more powerful (you can take a full attack, then spend a hero point to take a delayed full attack once something else has acted), but removes the interrupt ability which is causing so many problems for an IRC game.
I appreciate the advice, but I feel that changing the way I run the game (slightly) to allow the hero point usage as an interrupt would be more desirable here. I would like them to be able to interrupt things, and if I have to give an OOC room heads up to the players before, that's not something that is too odious to implement.
To use your example, I'll be letting the players know "he cast a spell" and not the "and it did XYZ". They can determine if they want to use a hero point at the point when the action is being taken, if not, the action rolls out.