Action points

[The Dungeon Master]

I'd like to pull a recommendation from the book concenring action points, that I had meant to use, but forgot in the excitement of first game in a while/first Eberron game/edible image farting.
If you want to use an action point, I would like a description of the why's and how's a la the following dragonshard article (reprinted here without permission)

Action Points

As mentioned earlier, action points are a tool for enhancing combat, allowing anyone to make that critical shot or check when it really, really matters. Action points are also a way to draw the players into storytelling. The DM should always require players to justify their use of action points by describing the enhanced action in detail. Consider the player who 99% of the time just declares, "I attack the monster and roll an 18." If he wants to use an action point to enhance the roll, the DM is perfectly justified to demand a more colorful description. What makes this action so spectacular? Does the character distract his foe with a cunning move? Does he score a hit through dumb luck? Does he shift position so the sun is in his enemy's eyes? If the DM wants to hold the game to a high standard, she could rule that unless the player comes up with a good story, the action point can't be used at all!

[cw]

This comment seems to imply that the decision to use an action point is made before a d20 roll is made. Is that how it's supposed to work? 'Cause we've been doing: a) roll a d20, b) see that it might not be high enough, c) burn an action point and roll a bonus d6, d) find out the result. Right?

Are we supposed to: a) announce that we're going to use an action point on the next d20 roll (adding in any colorful descriptions), b) roll the d20 and the bonus d6, c) find out the result?

Otherwise, where would we add the colorful description?

"I attack the monster with my sword. (rolls a 14) Did I say attack? I meant to say that I WALLOPED the monster with my sword, shouting curses to the Silver Flame about the monster's obviously unwed mother! (rolls a bonus d6)"

[cw]

Other than that confusion, though, I like this rule. Though I can certainly see how one could not like it.

[The Dungeon Master]

I don't think it's a problem to roll and then decide to use the action point. The "what I meant to say" thing isn't really that bad, as all you'd be doing is adding in extra detail. I don't want to force any-one to roleplay n attack, just come up with a reson as to why this attack/action/save is different form others.
"taking full advantage of the fact that a dustmote had settled in the psion's eye, I allowed myself to become off-balance as I shifted all my weight into the blow."
or
"In a craven moment of self-preservation, I grabbed a nearby washerwoman to block the acidic spray spewing from the pipe."

[cynicalquagmire]

I think the rule, as interpreted is good. It inspires and encourages role-playing. As long as the interpretation stands as is (allowing us to burn the point after the d20 roll).

If, however, we should require a more "colorful" description of an attack, does this not imply we should be describing our regular (non-action point enhanced) attacks?

[The Dungeon Master]

Ben said:

I think the rule, as interpreted is good. It inspires and encourages role-playing. As long as the interpretation stands as is (allowing us to burn the point after the d20 roll).

If, however, we should require a more "colorful" description of an attack, does this not imply we should be describing our regular (non-action point enhanced) attacks?

Ideally, yes. I, as DM, am painfuly aware of the fact that I have let this slip a great deal on my part, tending to focus on organization instead of description. It's on my list of things to try and correct.