Action Point

[Lloyd Dupont]

I noticed all latest Imperative ruleset converge on everyone having base of 2 action point

(with exception such as higher rank adventurer in Classic Fantasy)

What of monsters? What is advised? Just wring it... 4 AP for boss monsters! 2 for the rest...

Edited September 4 by Lloyd Dupont

[Nozbat]

Do whatever fits the narrative Lloyd, and as Bosses tend to end up facing all the adventurers at once having run out of henchpeople to sacrifice for the cause.. 4 APs doesn't seem unreasonable.. or maybe more if the fight needs to have jeopardy. 

Definitely a few special effects too. 

When I ran the RQ3 Vikings, some of the major protagonists had Berserkergang as a natural ability. They couldn't be harmed by natural weapons (leastways thats the way I remember it) and the players all ran away after failing to hurt the 'boss'. Years later they found that magical weapons harmed him and that if they could survive long enough, he would eventually keel over from exhaustion. But I had five campaign seasons of running scared before they eventually eliminated him.

[Ian Absentia]

The Action Point economy in Mythras can't be understated.  For Imperative, the keep-it-simple version of the rules, APs have been leveled off at 2 AP for player characters.  It's the reasonable expectation of how much a regular, competent person can get done in a limited amount of time -- nothing particularly impressive, like with even 3 AP, or painfully sluggish as with only 1 AP.

A character or creature with 4 AP (or higher!) can quickly turn into a murder machine in combat, or at least hold multiple opponents at bay.  The escalation in potential mayhem from 2 to 3 to 4 AP and beyond might be geometric, not linear.  It's a matter of what that person can continue doing while others have been maneuvered to a standstill.

!i!

[Raleel]

largely, the AP2 number is mostly just to be a fixed number that's not based on a couple of characteristics. you could use about any number you like in there, just as long as it's fairly consistent. 

I generally find the ratio between the baseline for the campaign and the character deviation from that baseline is a better indicator of how it will affect the game. for example, having a boss with 3 when the characters have 2 is 3/2. having characters with 3 and a boss with 4 is 4/3, which is a smaller number, and thus a smaller impact. It also means any other alteration to that will feel more or less superhuman. 

Edited September 5 by Raleel
ratio not ration

[Lloyd Dupont]

Cool... I started writing some monsters (1 and half week to go before the campaign starts, I must get my shit done!)
(completely revamped the upkeep rule if anyone here has downloaded previous iterations)

And that gave me idea... I will shamelessly gave them (the monsters) an AP count depending on how "boss" they are! 😄

Edited September 5 by Lloyd Dupont

[Mugen]

On 9/4/2024 at 9:48 PM, Ian Absentia said:

For Imperative, the keep-it-simple version of the rules, APs have been leveled off at 2 AP for player characters.  It's the reasonable expectation of how much a regular, competent person can get done in a limited amount of time -- nothing particularly impressive, like with even 3 AP, or painfully sluggish as with only 1 AP.

I've seen people suggesting this as an option before Imperative, because they felt PCs with 3 APs were overpowered in combat, and it seemed to me fixing AP was in part an answer to them.

As for myself, I would base APs on the Initiative roll. It's based on the same characteristics, and it would lessen the difference between characters that are close to the threshold between 2 and 3 APs.

[Lloyd Dupont]

I was inspired strongly by Classic Fantasy Imperative. So it's gonna be 2 +

Plus what? where some skill rating gated perk up to +2 ...

But yeah, big impact...

 

[Raleel]

Fixed action points are listed as an option in core and have been for a long time 

[Ian Absentia]

8 hours ago, Mugen said:

As for myself, I would base APs on the Initiative roll. It's based on the same characteristics, and it would lessen the difference between characters that are close to the threshold between 2 and 3 APs.

If I take your meaning correctly, a special result on the Initiative roll might add bonus APs (or subtract them on an especially bad roll).  I like the idea in general, because it represents the fickle finger of fate, but...

...Mythras makes an effort to reduce some of the randomness of die-rolling in combat simulation by shifting the emphasis to strategic and tactical choices by the player.  Arguably, a number of the Special Effects, which are themselves the result of randomised rolls, grant actions that effectively represent several APs.  Similarly, Combat Style Traits often result in similar effects when the player chooses to employ them.

!i!

[Mugen]

18 hours ago, Ian Absentia said:

If I take your meaning correctly, a special result on the Initiative roll might add bonus APs (or subtract them on an especially bad roll).  I like the idea in general, because it represents the fickle finger of fate, but...

I'm not sure what you mean by "bonus APs" or "subtract them". I really meant to base APs on the Initiative roll, and not a bonus to base AP based on Initiative roll.

For instance, it could be APs = Initiative/10, rounded to the nearest integer.

If my Initiative is between 15 and 24, I'll have 2 APs. If it's between 25 and 34, I'll have 3 APs, and so on.

With Initiative being equal to 1d10 + the average of DEX and INT.

In my idea, Initiative is re-rolled before every combat round, but it might also be fixed in first round, and change depending on one's successes in battle, inside the possible outcomes of rolled Initiative. A SE could allow a character to "steal" Initiative to the other, for instance.

[Runeblogger]

I have also thought about implementing this. It is how the Shadowrun RPG does it (at least in the 3rd ed. I’m familiar with).

[lawrence.whitaker]

49 minutes ago, Mugen said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "bonus APs" or "subtract them". I really meant to base APs on the Initiative roll, and not a bonus to base AP based on Initiative roll.

For instance, it could be APs = Initiative/10, rounded to the nearest integer.

If my Initiative is between 15 and 24, I'll have 2 APs. If it's between 25 and 34, I'll have 3 APs, and so on.

With Initiative being equal to 1d10 + the average of DEX and INT.

In my idea, Initiative is re-rolled before every combat round, but it might also be fixed in first round, and change depending on one's successes in battle, inside the possible outcomes of rolled Initiative. A SE could allow a character to "steal" Initiative to the other, for instance.

Remember that Armour worn reduces the Initiative bonus, so you’d need to decide if the Action Point calculation is made taking the Armour Penalty into account or not.

[pachristian]

Default RPG standard is 2 actions a round (one attack, one other action). This is simple, but also limiting. I like having my players have three actions a round. Against individuals with two actions per combat round, the characters with thee have a huge advantage - this allows the heroic PC's the cinematic ability to take on a greater number of minions (if they play smart).

     Against a significant opponent, with 3 actions/round, initiative becomes crucial: In a one-on-one fight, the individual who wins initiative gets two attacks per round, the looser (generally) parries twice and attacks once. Armor (and passive shield use) may allow you to not parry and let your armor take hits - but it can be very risky. So the player has to weigh the advantages of armor against the loss of initiative. It's a great balance, and one the players in my game often agonize over. It also means that superior armor (either extra AP or reduced ENC) is a major prize in any game.

[g33k]

3 hours ago, pachristian said:

Default RPG standard is 2 actions a round (one attack, one other action). This is simple, but also limiting. I like having my players have three actions a round. Against individuals with two actions per combat round, the characters with thee have a huge advantage - this allows the heroic PC's the cinematic ability to take on a greater number of minions (if they play smart).

     Against a significant opponent, with 3 actions/round, initiative becomes crucial: In a one-on-one fight, the individual who wins initiative gets two attacks per round, the looser (generally) parries twice and attacks once. Armor (and passive shield use) may allow you to not parry and let your armor take hits - but it can be very risky. So the player has to weigh the advantages of armor against the loss of initiative. It's a great balance, and one the players in my game often agonize over. It also means that superior armor (either extra AP or reduced ENC) is a major prize in any game.

Yeah, I really like the divisions & choices that happen at 2AP / 3AP !

One thing I've played with, for 2AP vs 2AP:  the "presumption" is of 1 Attack vs 1 Parry, so I let someone take an "offensive" attitude, just soak the foe's 1st attack with armor & passive shield, then attack-and-get-parried (as expected), then their foe is out of AP's and you attack again. 

If the character trying this has either unusually heavy armor (to soak that 1st attack, or an unusually-damaging weapon for that 2nd (unparried) attack, it can provide a surprisingly effective strategy.

Can also work -- often better -- if they're the faster character:  attack-and-face-parry (as normal) then tank the return-attack (surprise!) and take their 2nd shot instead of parrying.

Standby insta-heal (a healer with a saved AP and other resources needed to keep them on their feet & fully-functional) is another option... but that gets into the whole strategic PC-Party vs NPC-Party action-economy, not just the 1:1 dueling tactics, arguably out of scope for the issue at hand!

I haven't done the mathy-analysis of figuring out where giving up the 1st-strike (with the possibility of getting parried) is worth if for the 0-AP defense facing a last-strike.  I'm sure there's a grey zone where it's unclear, but I expect there are some circumstances where it's a GOOD idea, and some where it's a BAD idea.

Edited September 11 by g33k

[Mugen]

On 9/10/2024 at 10:39 PM, pachristian said:

Default RPG standard is 2 actions a round (one attack, one other action). This is simple, but also limiting. I like having my players have three actions a round. Against individuals with two actions per combat round, the characters with thee have a huge advantage - this allows the heroic PC's the cinematic ability to take on a greater number of minions (if they play smart).

     Against a significant opponent, with 3 actions/round, initiative becomes crucial: In a one-on-one fight, the individual who wins initiative gets two attacks per round, the looser (generally) parries twice and attacks once. Armor (and passive shield use) may allow you to not parry and let your armor take hits - but it can be very risky. So the player has to weigh the advantages of armor against the loss of initiative. It's a great balance, and one the players in my game often agonize over. It also means that superior armor (either extra AP or reduced ENC) is a major prize in any game.

You could rule that performing more than one "active action" (in opposition to "reactive actions", such a defense) results in an increased difficulty for all actions (or maybe just active ones) performed in the round.

[Lloyd Dupont]

18 hours ago, Mugen said:

You could rule that performing more than one "active action" (in opposition to "reactive actions", such a defense) results in an increased difficulty for all actions (or maybe just active ones) performed in the round.

Late to the party! 🙂

Not a big problem... I am onboard with the system and wanted to follow rule as written to avoid argumentation and surprises on the table... 
Also... I like 2AP (Action Point in this context) per person, although I like bigger AP for "fast" creature. But I didn't like how a starting character could get the huge advantage of 3 AP with barely any cost. Sigh... I always complain, I know!

That aside, and as there are way to augment your AP, and as having different "type of AP" proved to be quite a confusing experience in the past for us, will not do that 🙂 

The bigger number of AP is for powerful enemies, bosses, and players too if they manage to meet the requirements and learn the appropriate perks...

Edited Monday at 10:35 PM by Lloyd Dupont