There is an action card (I don't remember the name and don't have the cards in front of me) that allows a player to throw his sword to attack. I think the card is Agility vs. Defense. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

Now certainly if a player does not possess this action he can still try to throw his sword to attack. It seems he would need to use the 'perform a stunt' action card in this instance.

so what's the advantage to possessing the action card? Possessing the card implies the character is actually better at it than the average Joe? Make the stunt an Agility vs. Defense check like the actual action card and just add a purple die?

What about the grapple action? Certainly a player could say I want to grab a hold of this guy so he can't get away. If he doesn't possess the grapple action, it's another stunt? Use the grapple card as a basis and add a purple?

How are people handling these situations?

I would simply take the base mechanics on the card (usually just the base success line) and add some misfortune or challenge dice.

The benefit is that either there are some effects on the card that the stunt doesn't get, or that it is harder to perform the stunt.

I would do exactly what you describe; use the action card as a basis and add additional challenge or misfortune dice. The reason for this is that the Action cards reflect a certain amount of training or practice in performing an action; someone who hasn't the card is doing something on the spur of the moment, usually without much more than a rudimentary knowledge of things such as the actual flight pattern of a longsword when hurled overhand. The other way of handling it is to simply disallow several actions; the character probably wouldn't throw their weapon unless they were pretty certain of success once they did so. I probably would invoke the power of "yes", though, and just make it more difficult than normal, and with fewer returns on an outstanding success.

Khoriboon said:

Action Cards are the weakest link to 3e in my opinion. The rest of the system is great, very clear cut, very innovative, but the Action Cards seem to confuse some of what they are trying to do with the system overall, in my opinion. I know a great deal of system revolves around these cards, so I will clarify how I've dealt with this exact problem that didn't take my player's long to spot either.

The simplest solution, eliminate Perform a Stunt. We did. Stunts inherently are covered in maneuvers - actions and vice a versa. We can roughly figure out what to do when a player wants to do something totally "off card." Boons and Banes can be interpreted all sorts of different ways. If I remember the stunt card, 2 boons allow you to regain a fatigue. Well, that's actually a universal option of the game.

If a player wants to do something, "like throw his sword," we simply use a basic ranged attack, set difficulty as per usual and add any additional modifiers (much easier to chuck a rapier than a two-handed sword). For melee attacks, off card, we use basic melee attack. Any other action not covered by a card, we make up as we go along, the effects, etc. Generally, attacks that deal damage though follow the pattern of the basic melee/ranged attack.

The Action cards themselves generate damage and secondary effects, that's really it. So the benefit of having an Action Card over a basic attack is the increased amount of damage they generate or those special effects (like hitting a second target or making an additional attack.). Compare Acrobatic Strike, Double Strike, and Basic Melee Attack and I think you'll see what I mean. So yes, someone can chuck his sword, but the action won't have nearly the impact as the chuck sword action card. Make sense? It also may be easier to chuck the sword without the special card, as the special sword-chuck card delivers more effects than a basic ranged attack therefore requiring more skill, precision, etc. hence the increased difficulty.

The only action we do make card specific is the cards that target a second target or allow a second swing, like double strike, rapid fire, and execution shot.

We also cut grapple in my standard group, but at the LGS we use grapple and it's alright. If you look at grapple it does not simply reflect a standard grapple, that grapple is a beast to get out of.

I see your point about dropping the 'perform a stunt' action. Just last night while facing off against a large demon, our bailiff decided he'd try to jam the demon's maw open by vertically ramming his war hammer into it's snapping jaws. He used 'perform a stunt'. I actually didn't pay much attention to how the GM created the dice pool for that one, but it seems like two possible ways to approach it could be:

A) As a specialized melee attack. It does no damage but has the special affect of 'disarming' the beasts bite attack (a.k.a. adding recharge tokens to the bite attack which cost a maneuver to remove). Additional challenge or misfortune dice should be added.

B) As an agility/coordination check with the same effect listed in A).

So what is the point of even having the perform a stunt action card? I guess to remind us that what you are attempting is an action and not a maneuver. Our bailiff shouldn't be able to treat his jam the jaws attempt as a maneuver and then get an additional melee attack as an action.

My first instinct would be to say this is obviously a melee action. The bailiff is in engaged, and attempting to perform an action against the engaged foe. As it's base, it should be Weapon Skill (St) vs Defense. But there are plenty of action cards that are designated melee attack cards that use different base skills. Some are opposed checks. Some are standard characteristic checks. So that's why I suppose option B) still might be a viable choice. In fact, maybe instead of Agilty/coordination it should be a Strength/Athletics check. In fact, the argument for a characteristic/skill check might be stronger since defense is typically defined by armor (including natural) and shields. The Bailiff is not trying to penetrate through armor to do damage. He is attempting to 'disarm'. Opposed or Challenge check? Not sure on that one.

If I went with a challenge check, any challenge/misfortune dice needs to represent the difficulty involved in the attempt as it requires the bailiff to give up all reach afforded by his weapon. Impeccable timing is also required as he would have to ram the weapon in when the beast's jaws are at their greatest extension and hope that the angle of the gaping jaws is still sharp enough to provide the weapon a solid surface to wedge against. Warhammers tend to be heavy so that would probably worsen the situation as well.

My instincts say this is a hard challenge (3d). I wouldn't award any misfortune unless I could think of anything further to complicate his situation. He was in a prone position at the time, the beast having knocked him down and looming over him, so a single misfortune to represent his limited mobility could be tossed on as well. Banes on failure could mean he temporarily loses his weapon anyway. Banes on success or failure could give damage as the beast manages to rip into the bailiff's arm. A chaos star could potentially give damge and the beast a grapple condition on the bailiff's arm.

If i went with an opposed check, I guess it'd be athletics vs athletics, which may give the bailiff a better chance of success. I guess I'm not entirely sure when actions are opposed and when they are challenge based.

I've kind of rambled away from my original question but I think in the direction of perhaps what my question really was. How does the 'perform a stunt' action card function (including how does it fit in with the other action cards) and related to that question, how does the GM decide what kind of a check is appropriate (vs. defense or opposed or purely base difficulty challenge).