My friend Antalon from the Mythras forums wrote an essay on how the Game Master could handle movement rules with action points in different situations. These are rulings not rules. These have been in use for a long time in his campaign and work well.
3 March 2024
Mythras uses both very specific movement rates, in metres, but also leans heavily into abstract combat, ‘Theatre of the Mind’, and Game Master judgement for determining outcomes of movement in combat. It also applies a per Round (5 second) measurement to allowable movement distance, whereas combat Turns focus the action on a more intense, moment by moment, timescale, measured by expenditure of Action Points. Judging movement between per Round distance covered and the appropriate expenditure of Action Points has provoked confusion, discussion (lots of it), and a breadth of solutions, from grid-based phased movement to reading ‘around’ the rules. At its core, the challenge is how Action Points should be expended on a Character’s Turn when they wish to move, and how to prevent the Delay/ Interrupt action giving an unfair Action Point advantage – a concern explicitly addressed in the core Mythras rules. This is a topic at risk of overthinking! Nonetheless, I am offering an interpretation, my own ruling to this perennial problem. Dead horse, prepare to be flogged! (If you use a grid-based solution, the following may be of limited relevance.)
First, the core principle is the Game Master should judge if the distance, terrain and movement rate of opponents that intend to engage in melee should require dedicated movement, or not? If dedicated movement is required, then the Game Master should judge how much time is expended in Combat Rounds. Any movement across a distance that could be covered in less than a Combat Round (5 seconds) should be subsumed within – treated as part of – any other action. Otherwise, one or more Combat Rounds are expended in (that is, dedicated to) movement: do not bother with Action Points in this case. Some simple actions could accompany this round-based movement: drawing a sword, shouting a challenge or warning etc.
Second, we need to clarify what the Move proactive action does. As noted in the Mythras core rules, “the Move […] action is not required for every instance of movement during combat”. Instead, for Unengaged characters, I tend to consider the Move proactive action as a ‘movement & manoeuvre’ activity where an Action Point cost is suitable and justified. Examples are climbing a wall, clambering across a wagon, leaping onto the sails of a windmill, or other focused ‘manoeuvring’ actions. This will usually require a skill test. The Game Master could allow this action to occur on the character’s usual initiative count in the round’s Turn cycle, but circumstances may arise that require a different ruling. For example, an opponent could intend, in the same round, to close and Engage a moving & manoeuvring character. (Maybe the character is attempting to climb a wall to escape melee?) The Game Master may allow the character a Move action, costing an Action Point, to be attempted before Engagement occurs. However, if the manoeuvre fails, this places the character, in effect, at an Action Point ‘disadvantage’ once engaged. In this case, too bad! If your character is close to an opponent, be sure to manoeuvre out of reach or prepare to defend yourself!
If already Engaged, similar manoeuvres should be a proactive action, resolved perhaps as an Opposed Roll similar to Change Range, or Outmanoeuvre, or simply resolved as an Attack proactive action capped by a relevant skill, typically Athletics or Acrobatics if especially gymnastic. The intended manoeuvre may produce an advantage, such as leaping atop a table to gain high ground, striking the upper hit locations and making an opponent’s rolls to defend Hard difficulty. An attack roll above a capped skill fails but could also impose a further penalty such as dropping to one knee or off-balance, leading to a situational modifier. The Game Master may also rule that an intended manoeuvre is not possible at all whilst Engaged. The key principle here is that a character manoeuvring in combat will get an advantage that an opponent may wish to counter, at the cost of their own Action Point: hence modelled on Change Range, Outmanoeuvre, or a capped attack roll that is defended against as a reaction.
So, how does this play at the table? I find taking a moment to clarify movement intentions helps to make fair and transparent judgements, with which players agree. To do this, at the beginning of each combat round, I ask players to declare a brief ‘statement of intent’ for their character. The main purpose is to help the Game Master understand and anticipate movement between characters and opponents. It also allows a judgement of what actions can be combined with the intended distance to be covered, for example moving whilst loading a bow. The Game Master can then make a Ruling of the permissible movement in the Round, and whether it is just: i) subsumed into an action; ii) imposes a skill cap to an action; iii) triggers an opposed roll if Engaged; iv) is best handled in Combat Rounds, without recourse to the Action Point economy; or v) needs some specific treatment due to very unusual circumstances. Some specific issues follow.
So, how far can you go in 5 seconds and what can you do, how is this judgement reached? The specific Mythras character movement rates, along with considering the natural terrain, inform this judgement. A rule of thumb for me is that in fairly open terrain, with good visibility, the running speed of a character can be covered as part of other actions over the Round, so around 18 – 20 metres distance total in the Combat Round whilst taking proactive actions. More difficult terrain or choice of action should significantly limit these relative distances. For example, running whilst loading a bow (Ready Weapon pro-active action) is not possible, unless you have the skirmishing trait or perhaps succeed with a roll against combat style, but advancing at base walking speed and loading is usually fine. Similarly for Cast Magic. Attempting these same actions in a forest, at night, may be very different, or not permitted: an Attack action or loading a bow may perhaps allow only 2 -3 metres movement. Very poor terrain may require a dedicated Move action. This movement should usually not disadvantage a character by drawing them into melee and suffering the core delay/ interrupt problem. But, this is hugely dependent on circumstances: characters facing arboreal predators with night sight in the tops of mighty trees on Monster Island may be placed exactly at an Action Point disadvantage if trying to move! However, we are talking about only 5 seconds remember!
What if characters or opponents have significantly different movement rates? The statement of intent can help: perhaps a giant can cross the distance and attack in the same round; but the human character needs a combat round of dedicated movement. This may best be resolved by considering the following cases.
What do characters (or opponents) do during combat rounds whilst an opponent closes on them? Whatever is reasonable. The Brace and Ready Weapon actions allow spears to be set, shields may be positioned as a Free Action to ward location. Archers should be able to make an attack, consider an attack every other Round reasonable, as would a javelin wielder amongst others. If the missile user wants to Delay for the optimum range, then the Action Point cost for this arises in the same Round that the moving character engages in melee, this ‘prepared shot’ occurs before the normal initiative cycle begins, thus avoiding the delay/ interrupt ‘problem’. (Note, I would not allow any defence except for ward location from a shield, and the benefit that running targets are Hard difficulty, and Sprinting targets Formidable difficulty, to hit.) Spell casters can expend their full Action Points on casting, perhaps sufficient to cast the spell at the closing opponent, or have it ready once engagement starts, treated as a ‘prepared shot’ if suitable. An opponent could also want to move…
What if an opponent also intends to move, to close or charge, a moving character? In this case, both sides may expend one or more Rounds in movement; or just allow Engagement to occur automatically at some intervening distance. The choice may depend on whether allies or others wish to make ranged attacks or prepare spells in the intervening moments. Where movement rates are significantly different, this may determine both how quickly close combat may begin and the relative position on the battlefield. The giant that also wishes to close with the puny humans could cover the distance easily enough to allow close combat to begin immediately and positioned close to where the human opponents started. Unengaged opponents may also wish to flee, which could be resolved as an opposed Athletics test, and different movement rates may make it more difficult or impossible to flee (or catch-up, as appropriate).
I still don’t get it? Consider this. Establish distances as four range bands: close; near; bow-range; long-range. At close, movement has no separate Action Point cost; at near, it takes a combat round to close, so that next round everyone begins ‘close’. Bow-range requires two combat rounds for a typical human to close to near, likely allowing at least one ranged attack (for which the defence is only a shield’s passive warding as noted above). Long-range is at least three, maybe more, Combat Rounds, and far enough that range penalties may affect any missile fire, whilst Fatigue may also be a factor to the closing character.
Notes From Pavis 