I totally get what you're saying Morskittar, but the recharge doesn't facilitate this, perform a stunt does as you lay out. Modifying the results on the fly is good and should be encouraged (especially with those dice). Heck, I plan on having players who a boat load of boons apply some condition on top of whatever special card stuff goes down. They can cause knock downs, disarms, gain an advantage, whatever. It just adds to the description and makes combat not nearly as flat. Then again, my combats are more about conflict resolution than flat out task resolution.

Your point is very valid and I can see where the recharge might add to this. Something to definitely think about. It is definitely inspiring thought about how to look at combat as well as the cards.

I will say though the same effect could have been achieved, like I said in my original post, with a card that accents the task resolution from the dice adding both the advantages of the basic attack of a weapon and a specialized action like the Troll Feller attack onto it. Instead of bringing the card into play and say exactly I'm doing x, maybe it could have been when you put down an action card, you can say I'm attempting to do Troll Feller. Some required or degree of success would be required to activate the card (like one or two successes or a boon or something) but if you meet the higher ends of the requirement you get more and more stuff. This way, the character is always stunting while trying to achieve a better result than their basic ability. I feel Double Strike works that way already, but it's lack of recharge helps facilitate that feel. So if you're armed with two weapons, you're attempting to double strike constantly, but sometimes the opening isn't there, sometimes the opportunity isn't there, sometimes the stunt helps you yield the effect and at other times, it doesn't. Recharge mandates that these specific actions can only happen at x variable times. The rest of the time, you're either making it up on the fly (the stunt) or gearing yourself toward another specific action).

I guess what it really comes down to for me is the pre-packaged stuff is great, don't get me wrong and will be especially unique and exciting for some, but really I don't see how it's as integrated as well as it could be. I don't know, maybe its the writer in me, but a good system needs to be streamlined, all components working to achieve the same end so the learning curve is less and the game becomes more intuitive to the players involved so less rules-lawyer stuff has to be done and more game can be played. The same goes for stories, all components must somehow relate to the central narrative to make it work. This system tackles specific actions yet tries to give you freedom. These things sort of go at odds with each other, yielding a system that on the surface is trying to please two different functions and sort of compromising both. A lot of attention has been put to those special actions, yet you don't need them? You can interpret the dice anyway you want, but these cards say specifically how you interpret them? You see how that contradicts itself to some degree. Both play-styles seem almost set up as optional, rather than figuring out how best they could have integrated into a fantastic free form mechanic or a great rigid system. I know what I'm talking about is radically different than other RPG'S, but I feel the game started out that way, then swung back around to good old comfortable action patterns and recharge mechanics (I know, it's new to roleplaying, but its not new to gaming). I think more ground could have been broken here and I wish they would have, hence why I'm willing to debate on this point so much because I do truly love what they've done with the game.

commoner said:

I have the same reluctance about the action cards. It seems like it could work out fine, but that it may also become redundant with the basic skill resolution system that the game ALSO has. I can't wait to analyse the cards in depth to find out. And you also need to see how it all works out in actual play.

Totally agree Jericho. We do need to see how they play out before I pass real judgement, it's sort of my gut reaction from the demo I played and from browsing the cards. I'm also glad to see that I'm not the only guy who sees this about the system. If I am write, I'll post up some house rules on how to integrate them better. In my opinion, the options of additional Fatigue for trying them again while recharging or the bonus misfortune dice just isn't enough, as it doesn't solve the problem of resource management either, simply complicates them.

I gotcha, Commoner. And yeah, I think you do have a good point about what the actions actually do add. I *think*, at least from the sessions I've played, is the same thing as recharge. Which is less about what they add (which, you're right, isn't a whole lot) and more what they *don't* add (tons of complexity and on-the-fly- rules generation).

If, by practice, players don't use Perform a Stunt (or manage a houseruled fatigue system) on a regular basis, and use pre-packaged abilities by preference, there's that much less bookkeeping by the DM and more responsibility player-side.

Of course, these things are probably more useful to me because I can't dedicate a lot of time to playing, running, or getting very comfortable with the system. Anything that makes it mechanically easier and frees my limited time for writing and running story is a good thing.

It's kind of funny. If FFG hadn't provided the "Perform a Stunt" card, there would be flack for not having something to cover those "other" actions/situations that there isn't a card for. So, they include it to our benefit, and now it is getting picked on, and that all the other action cards are counterproductive to the Stunt card (and/or vice versa).

People need to keep in mind that the recharge is in ROUNDS. The common interpretation of a round in combat is about 6 seconds. The recharge is not making the action only usable once per day. It is making it usable only once per 30 seconds (or whatnot). That is hardly unbelievable. Certain actions are inherently faster to perform than others. A boxer's jab is faster than an uppercut or a hook. If you had a set amount of time, say 12 seconds (2 rounds), how many jabs can a fighter make versus hooks/uppercuts? If you put a jab (being the faster action), as the default, hooks and uppercuts will be slower. Thus, a jab has a recharge of 0, while a hook might have a recharge of 2. This represents that a boxer can throw twice as many jabs as hooks in the same amount of time. So, as a loose example, in 12 seconds a fighter might be able to throw 2 jabs, but only 1 hook. Based on windup, placement, and follow-through of the maneuver, a hook physically takes longer to fully execute and return to a position to attempt another. This is all perfectly reasonable in a "realism" manner, and lines up with the recharge mechanic.

Gameplay-wise, it also mixes up the actions that can be used by PCs and enemies. As well, the same recharge mechanic is used in reverse for spells that have durations (they last until they have no recharge counters), making things nice and simple.

It works just fine in game, and doesn't become tedious or annoying or fiddly from any of the people I spoke with (as well as a large number of people on the boards).

House ruling is fine, it's a part of every RPG. However, I don't want people thinking the recharge mechanic doesn't work or is any less realistic than any v2 actions (or actions from other games). I'm just pointing out that it does work, and it *is* reasonably realistic. The bottom line is that it just doesn't feel right for your style of gameplay, which in that case finding a good house rule option is probably your best recourse. One of the great things about 3e from what I can tell, is that it's pretty flexible in this way. There are a lot of game mechanics that you can use (like fatigue/stress) to help make a viable alternative while still staying in the spirit of the rules.

dvang said:

Are all cards realistic regarding their recharge values ? I mean are all recharge values well designed ? In your opinion of course.

As I said above, I think the system can work as is, if the cards are well designed. If some cards are overpowered, badly designed or have ridiculous recharge values, then the house.. of cards comes tumbling down.

I read all reports and I feel that they seem more or less well designed, but I'm curious to hear from players that have closely examined the action cards.

Personnally, I like the Perform a Stunt card, and I hope that it's not just an add-on to patch a design flaw (there cannot be cards for every imaginable action, so let's create the Perform a Stunt card to fill in the blanks, even though the listed effects of the card are general and not clearly defined (all GM fiat ? precise guidelines on how to adjuticate them vs standrad skill use ?)

Jericho said:

Most of the cards have a 0, 2, or 3 recharge rating. There are no '1' recharges. The reason is that you take the first token off a recharging card the same turn you use it, so a '1' would be basically no recharge. A recharge of 2 means you will skip a turn using the card while it's recharging (-1 token the turn you use it, -1 token the next turn, the 2nd turn it's ready to use).

Most cards that have a recharge (at all) are 2 or 3. That means you can't use the card for 1 or 2 turns. Some have HUGE recharges, like 10. But, they provide ways for you to remove them. There's one spell for the Gray Wizard that adds 10 and I think you can spend a manoeuvre to remove most or all of them.

Then there's the fortune points. If you play a card with a 2 recharge, you remove 1 at the end of your turn. You can spend a fortune point to remove the other, and it's ready next turn.

So, if you want to do something faster, a little luck and a little effort goes a long way. Wow... that sounds like most things in life.

The recharge system works great. I think most people that are complaining about it haven't seen it in action yet. They are knee-jerking.

Look at it like this. GMs can now allow their players to have very powerful spells and moves without worrying that they will toss all their other cards away and just spam that one attack. That would be boring. When you are on your 4th career, Magic Dart will still be useful. Not earth shattering, but not useless.

NezziR said:

It's got that huge number because that's the duration of the spell. The wizard can remove all of the recharge at once, ie. ending the spell early, as a maneuver. I think all the non-duration actions have a recharge of 5 or less, although most are in the 2-3 range. It's hard to say how balanced they all are, without having seen them in use. It *seems* like they are balanced, except for Double Strike, which seems like, IMHO, it could do with a 2 recharge instead of 0. 0's seem to be mainly reserved for basic actions, which Double Strike isn't. Everything else seems pretty well in-line. Then again, I've only had experience with Double Strike in the demo. There are some aspects of Double Strike and dual-wielding, such as needing 2 maneuvers to draw both weapons, not having a free hand to do anything else (like grabbing or picking something up), etc, that might mitigate the action card's power outside of a purely combat/damage situation.

dvang said:

Doh! I knew that... Thanks for clearing that up dvang.

Thanks people.

So I guess if some card is unbalanced at the recharge level, it will become apparent through play and just a recharge number tweak will makes things good.

Any other troublesome action like Double Strike out there ?