Action point metagaming

[krotana]

Sorry if this is too trivial or if it was handled in some other topic, I could not find it, though.

Eberron action points (AP) concept is well known: limited number of AP per level, typically use 1 (per round) to add +1d6 (or more) to your 1d20 dice, before you know the result.

For example boosting attack roll in a BBEG fight.

How do you handle situation, where after a few rounds the players know the AC they need to hit? Or DC to save against?

Situations like
"I rolled 3, no reason to use action point becuse last round 9 was not enough"
or even worse
"I have got 21 on my attack roll...hmm... the guy has AC of 27, I would need to roll at least 6 on my d6... no, I am not going to use my AP for that".

That is pretty much in contradiction to the condition posted in the AP description (not knowing the result), and quite a metagaming.

[Kajhera]

...Give the BBEG improved combat expertise. Variable AC.  

I generally don't think it's a big deal. Observation tends to impart knowledge about things like how heavily armored someone is and how well they dodge. If you don't like it, not too hard to make it vary.

Give them Power Attack while you're at it. Keep 'em guessing.

[RobbyPants]

It's just gonna happen.  Sort of like how the wizard player will note what he's fighting and target weak saves.  You can get creative to mess with them a bit, but then you're must DM-metagaming, so I don't know that it's any better.

[genuine]

Personally, I've never had a problem with that sort of metagaming. Look at it from a character perspective: the character knows how to put a little more oomph into their attack. If they're a bit worried they can use a bit of focus and energy to make an attack more potent, but they can't keep it up. The character is experienced enough to know what that extra oomph costs, and experienced enough to know what that extra oomph will give. 

In the situation above, they character has also been dealing with the given foe for at least a few rounds. The character knows how hard it is to connect with the enemy, and the character knows how well he's doing in a given round. He probably knows when he's whiffed it real bad even as he's beginning the swing - if a baseball player fouls up his footing as he takes a swing, he's often going to know he missed before the ball crosses the plate. That character also is going to know whether or not that extra focus is worth the effort. If you rolled a three (say, in game, your character stumbles briefly as he tries to make the attack; not enough to put him in danger, but enough to seriously mess up the attack). When you've already failed that much, the character isn't going to exert the effort to try and save the attack, he'll just prepare for the counter. On the other hand, a character is also going to have an idea of when he's close, but not quite close enough - if you managed to get past a blocking weapon and shield, but the sword is still going for a strong bit of armored shoulder, then the extra oomph might let you make a last second twist and get a less-well-armored spot.

A player basing his decisions on actual experience with a given enemy really isn't metagaming. The player and the character both know what options they have, and have an idea of how strong the foe is. Expending resources in line with that is perfectly fair.

[archangel.arcanis]

+1 to what genuine said. The character has a good idea if the extra effort is going to be enough to make it count. I've been doing martial arts for 9 years and I can tell you exactly when a good second effort is worth doing or not. The character has the same perspective. Just because the player knows that they will need something 5 points higher doesn't mean the character won't know that they could succeed with a bit of extra effort but that isn't very likely to happen.

Now if the players start to memorized monster stat blocks and are telling everyone else exactly what the AC is before they even begin combat, then you can smack them with the book. Also keep in mind that knowledge checks are also there to tell the characters and players details such as exact AC without them having to go through a few rounds to test it out.

[rot42]

You could just declare that Action Point use must be declared with and rolled at the same time as the original d20 roll. This maintains the "PCs are exceptional and are capable of truly heroic feats" aspect of APs, but may lead to players feeling that they have "wasted" a finite resource. On the other hand, if you make something truly exceptional happen whenever they roll a "natural twenty six" or whatever, it could give some of the same feel as the Final Fantasy limit breaks, if that is what you want. That is slightly less probable than 00 on a percentile; a result of greater than 20 when using an Action Point is about one in six (0.175).

[Whisper]

This is not metagaming.

Metagaming is playing the game rules as a game environment... in other words, mixing rules data with how the character interacts with the setting.

Characters may not know what an AC is... but they also don't know what an Action Point is. They simply fight to the best of their ability, using the trained reflexes that these rules are designed to model.

Just as I learned practicing various martial arts that one does not push a failed attack, they know not to spend an "action point" when they can't hit the enemy's "armor class"... even if those concepts are abstractions they are unaware of.

[veekie]

Now if the players start to memorized monster stat blocks and are telling everyone else exactly what the AC is before they even begin combat, then you can smack them with the book. Also keep in mind that knowledge checks are also there to tell the characters and players details such as exact AC without them having to go through a few rounds to test it out.

Yeah, finding out an AC requires at least two attacks(usually a lot more), so if you can work it out that way you'd be not too far from beating the creature in the normal course of things. Memorizing statblocks is an issue if you use monsters straight, but what DM doesn't customise them at least somewhat?

[archangel.arcanis]

Now if the players start to memorized monster stat blocks and are telling everyone else exactly what the AC is before they even begin combat, then you can smack them with the book. Also keep in mind that knowledge checks are also there to tell the characters and players details such as exact AC without them having to go through a few rounds to test it out.

Yeah, finding out an AC requires at least two attacks(usually a lot more), so if you can work it out that way you'd be not too far from beating the creature in the normal course of things. Memorizing statblocks is an issue if you use monsters straight, but what DM doesn't customise them at least somewhat?

Mine don't change anything. They are lazy that way. Also keep in mind if your party has a fair number of members by round 2 you probably know the AC within a point or two. That may just be me though.

[veekie]

Yeah but if you're swinging that many attacks it'd be dead by round 2 anyway. Unless its a boss critter, which would warrant identifying its AC.

[archangel.arcanis]

Yeah but if you're swinging that many attacks it'd be dead by round 2 anyway. Unless its a boss critter, which would warrant identifying its AC.

Not if the rest of your group thinks the level 9 paladin that only has about a +12 or 13 to hit is uber.