I think it would be a good idea to talk about one of the most rule heavy part of most table top RPGs including L5R: Combat. The following is basically my general perspective on things and intended as a jumping off point for discussion. I'd like to focus on generalities of things rather than the mechanical specifics as we discuss this important part of the game.

Stances :

I like the concept of the 5 stances (Full Attack, Attack, Center, Defense and Full Defense) in l5r 4e. What I don't like is that using the Defense and Full Defense stances in may ways becomes "skip my turn" instead of an actual tactical choice that advances the combat. I'd like to see ways (such as rules for making counterattacks and defending to tire out opponents) that going into the Defense and Full Defense stances become meaningful tactical choices.

Kata

Kata in 4e drive me nuts. The name implies that they are a series of practiced forms used to build muscle memory and allow reflex like use of various movements (i.e. the one-two jab/cross combo in boxing). The description and individual names of the Kata treat them more like sub-styles of various schools. The actual rules have them working as mini-stances. I think this identity crisis along with the fact that learning Kata does not grant Insight is something that needs to be examined.

Maneuvers

I love the concept of Maneuvers. Being able to call raises in order to have more tactical options in combat is a great thing, but the requirement to call raises before the attack roll is made tends to leave them underutilized in a lot of cases. The variety of Maneuvers and their effects do not help either. Feinting for some reason increases damage and is potentially more effective than calling 3 Increased Damage raises. I also think that the some school techniques (for example the Daigotsu Bushi's IR5 Inhuman Assault technique) might be better if they were complex maneuvers that could be purchased for use.

Weapons

I kinda understand why 4e made the Katana the "best" weapon, but I don't really like that they did so. It sometimes feels like the choice is mostly "Does your school get greater benefits from not using a sword? No? Use a sword." I'd rather have the weapons somewhat comparable to each other with inherent advantages/disadvantages with the superiority of the Katana being something more cultural than mechanical.

Those are my thoughts for the start.

I like where you're going with this.

1) active defense, blocks/parries, counters, etc, are needed

2) it's a very odd choice of name -- by some other name they seem fine overall (some appear broken as hell)

3) both the books and things said on the old forums seem to indicate that combat quickly devolves into "dueling raises" as the overall power level of a campaign went up

4) it's one of the ways in which the "modern Western myth of Japan" is baked into the mechanics of the game

Okay, I'll bite. :-) Given my redesign threads, it may surprise people here to know my thoughts on the combat/bushi side of things are pretty minimal -- there are changes I'd make, but most of them are relatively cosmetic rather than systemic.

Stances :

I like the concept of the 5 stances (Full Attack, Attack, Center, Defense and Full Defense) in l5r 4e. What I don't like is that using the Defense and Full Defense stances in may ways becomes "skip my turn" instead of an actual tactical choice that advances the combat. I'd like to see ways (such as rules for making counterattacks and defending to tire out opponents) that going into the Defense and Full Defense stances become meaningful tactical choices.

I think they can be tactical choices as they're currently written -- but only if the combat is set up in a fashion that gives them a chance to be relevant, and admittedly, not every GM does that. (I often don't, because I just don't care enough to get complicated with the fights.) Among other things, it helps if movement is relevant, such that you might want to shift into DS while you cross the field.

Counterattacking in Defense Stance . . . in part, that can be represented with stance dancing (the thing where you start in DS and delay your action in R2, shift to AS and attack, then shift back at the beginning of the next round). Some kind of retaliatory strike could also be possible, but it feels to me like the kind of thing that shouldn't be an automatic option; you should have to learn how to do it. Making it a bushi tech doesn't make sense, because then either every school has to spend a rank on it, or only some schools can do this. Ditto making it a weapon skill mastery ability. So I'd suggest making it the R5 mastery ability for Defense, such that when attacked in DS, you can make a single attack that cannot benefit from Raises. I wouldn't allow it in FDS, in the same way that FAS basically doesn't let you do anything *but* attack.

As for "tiring out your opponent," without a more generalized way of measuring fatigue as a thing that automatically happens in the later stages of combat, I don't see a good way to implement it.

Not exactly a matter of stances, but: one of my quibbles is that the Defense skill, as written, is useless 95% of the time, because 95% of the time you're in AS or maybe FAS. In two years of the campaign I played in, I used the skill precisely once. But my GM house-ruled, and I've kept this alteration, that ATN is Reflexes x5 + Defense x2. That makes the skill relevant even when you're not in those stances.

Kata

Kata in 4e drive me nuts. The name implies that they are a series of practiced forms used to build muscle memory and allow reflex like use of various movements (i.e. the one-two jab/cross combo in boxing). The description and individual names of the Kata treat them more like sub-styles of various schools. The actual rules have them working as mini-stances. I think this identity crisis along with the fact that learning Kata does not grant Insight is something that needs to be examined.

The name is wildly off-target, yeah. :-P

Kata are one of the few things I'd completely overhaul. My experience is that most players will buy the one kata they intend to use all the time, with maybe a backup kata they'll use once or twice when the conditions are right, and ignore the remainder -- less because they cost XP and more because they cost a Simple Action to activate, which means that switching between them is not worth the time. I'd like to see them treated more like ise zumi tattoos, in that activating one is a Free Action. Since you can only perform a given type of Free Action once per round, you can't pop into an offensive kata at the beginning of your turn and then a defensive one at the end, but you no longer have to sacrifice an attack to switch, which makes the use of more than one kata a viable tactical choice.

Of course, you can't just drop that house-rule in and expect it to work, because the existing kata weren't designed to be FA-activated. (Thousand Years of Steel: SO BROKEN if you could do them for free.) But you could overhaul them with that approach in mind, so that they work more like The Princess Bride: "I see you are using Bonetti's defense against me, eh?" "I thought it fitting, considering the rocky terrain." "Naturally. You must expect me to attack with Capo Ferro!" "Naturally. But I find that Thibault cancels out Capo Ferro. Don't you?" "Unless the enemy hasn't studied his Agrippa -- which I have!"

Maneuvers

I love the concept of Maneuvers. Being able to call raises in order to have more tactical options in combat is a great thing, but the requirement to call raises before the attack roll is made tends to leave them underutilized in a lot of cases. The variety of Maneuvers and their effects do not help either. Feinting for some reason increases damage and is potentially more effective than calling 3 Increased Damage raises. I also think that the some school techniques (for example the Daigotsu Bushi's IR5 Inhuman Assault technique) might be better if they were complex maneuvers that could be purchased for use.

Feinting should be called Precise Strike or something. Absolutely nothing in its mechanics describes actual feinting. In that sense, I see Increased Damage as just hitting a bit harder, whereas Precise Strike is about aiming for a more vulnerable spot on your target, with an increased risk that you miss your mark. But I'd leave it where you have to call the Raises before you roll, because it makes sense as a way of modeling the combat: I can't decide that I'm going to aim for that ***** in my opponent's armor rather than whatever opening I can find *after* I attack. I have to take my chances with the attack itself.

Weapons

I kinda understand why 4e made the Katana the "best" weapon, but I don't really like that they did so. It sometimes feels like the choice is mostly "Does your school get greater benefits from not using a sword? No? Use a sword." I'd rather have the weapons somewhat comparable to each other with inherent advantages/disadvantages with the superiority of the Katana being something more cultural than mechanical.

Okay, full disclosure: during the short time that freelancers were allowed to propose mechanics, I did my level best to get a Signature Weapon Advantage included in 4e, which would allow you to spend a VP on damage for a specific weapon type (e.g. a naginata rather than polearms overall), as if it were a katana. Never did find out why Hobart didn't like the idea of that, but I think it's a simple fix that would go a long way toward leveling the playing field, without losing the specialness of the katana. Let people buy an Advantage like that, tweak the weapon skill mastery abilities a bit to polish them up a bit, and I think it's pretty solid.

If we're talking about combat mechanics, I'll share two other alterations I've house-ruled into my game: first, I got rid of Ninjutsu, as mentioned in the Skill List thread. And second, I made a Bludgeons skill, because it just hurts my *brain* to see sai, jitte, tonfa, and nunchaku treated as if they were knives and staves, which they so wildly are not.

Additional thought: while I wouldn't make the Daigotsu R5 a thing people can buy with XP, I've wondered for a while if the game might not benefit from having an additional category of Advantages -- call them Dojo Advantages, maybe -- which would represent the character having received some kind of special training that doesn't quite rise to the level of replacing one of their school techniques.

I think this could be really beneficial for some of the "universal" alternate paths; in fact, the whole thought process started with the Topaz Champion path, which in no way behaves like an alternate path. It has no mechanical entry requirements, and it doesn't replace your R1 technique; it's just an Advantage whose only cost is the ability to talk your GM into letting you have it. :-P That led me to the awkwardness that is the Jeweled Legionnaire/Magistrate/Champion paths, which suffer from having to be slotted in at a particular technique rank -- an approach that not only screws with both the narrative and the mechanical build of a character, but makes hash of the notion that school techniques are a thing that have to fit together in a logical progression. Then that thought collided with my thoughts on Tea Ceremony as a skill: I don't like it being more or less a group Meditation that requires tools . . . but I can't think of a good single core use for it other than restoring Void Points . . . but folding it in with the other Perform skills seems to really undervalue its role in society . . . but if I make a Tea Master path, or probably more than one because different clans would have their own traditions, then it *has* to replace an existing technique, which I don't like. But hey! If there are Dojo Advantages, then someone who has made a serious study of the tea ceremony in their spare time can be able to do a bit more than just perform it beautifully, without having to replace their normal training. And there could still be alternate paths for those schools (e.g. the Doji) where this is a Really Big Deal.

The way I envision this working is that Dojo Advantages would cost XP like normal Advantages (probably quite a whack of it, for the more powerful ones), plus you would also have to meet entry requirements like you do with paths. (Requirements that might be both mechanical and narrative: it doesn't matter whether you meet the standards for an Emerald Magistrate if nobody appoints you to the position.) The benefit is that, with the occasional exception (Topaz Champion), you wouldn't have to take them at a particular point in your character progression, but you would get an effect that's more complex than a simple skill mastery ability.

It isn't wholly a combat-related concept, as my reference to the tea ceremony shows, but it was your comment about purchasing abilities that made me think of it. What do other people think?

Something I was going to bring up in the skills thread was about Weapon skills. Is Weapon really a Macro skill, or is it a Tag that gets applied to a bunch of related but different skills?

Something I was going to bring up in the skills thread was about Weapon skills. Is Weapon really a Macro skill, or is it a Tag that gets applied to a bunch of related but different skills?

I'd say Weapon skills are a related group of different skills.

Weapon is a macro skill for all those various gaijin weapons that don't actually fit under any of the other skills. Like... umm... blunderbusses. And shields.

Stances :

I like the concept of the 5 stances (Full Attack, Attack, Center, Defense and Full Defense) in l5r 4e. What I don't like is that using the Defense and Full Defense stances in may ways becomes "skip my turn" instead of an actual tactical choice that advances the combat. I'd like to see ways (such as rules for making counterattacks and defending to tire out opponents) that going into the Defense and Full Defense stances become meaningful tactical choices.

The Defense stance is not a "skip my turn" stance, in fact, it's a very useful stance. First of all, it's the stance of the Shugenja, since he can cast spells in this stance. For the Bushi, if he's a yojimbo, he's able to spend his action(s) into guarding one or two person, a yojimbo's job isn't always the best one, but the boost it gives, will help a lot, specially in a game where there's not a lot of players. A R2 Daidoji Iron Warrior as example will guard one round and attack the other and provides a very good cover for his allies, which becomes a great tactical choice.

Now, it's really situationnal and it will depends on the gamestyle of the Storyteller, but I've seen it and the defensive stance is really great in this situation, what I call the "archers gunline". Where the player's team is at least 200 yards away from them and it's pretty hard to retaliate since almost none of the team is competent in ranged attack. This is where the defensive stance comes in play, to give a chance to the melee characters to get in melee range. Let's not forget that every little helps count. So I also count the Defense stance as a "Full move stance" since it allows you to move and have some TN bonus. Better move with a TN bonus than no bonus at all and doing nothing else but moving.

This being said, I'll have to disagree with the fact that the Defense stance is a "skip my turn" stance.

As for the Full Defense, I'll agree on this, maybe the rank 7 bonus simple action in Full Defense should provide something like that. Something like: "One single action may be taken in Full Defense. This action may not be an attack, unless in a turn somebody attacks your character and failed to hit you, allowing you to counterattacks in the same round." This would gives a nice boost and since only Bushi can attack in simple action, it may be something interesting.

Kata

Kata in 4e drive me nuts. The name implies that they are a series of practiced forms used to build muscle memory and allow reflex like use of various movements (i.e. the one-two jab/cross combo in boxing). The description and individual names of the Kata treat them more like sub-styles of various schools. The actual rules have them working as mini-stances. I think this identity crisis along with the fact that learning Kata does not grant Insight is something that needs to be examined.

I wouldn't look at the names of a techniques or a kata to judge something. Just look at some School Techniques, you'll see the same. Some examples:

"The Eternal Stone Unleashed" for the Hida Pragmatics R1 (+1k0 to Atk, dmg roll and resist Intimidation/Fear)

"Strength of Purity" for the Akodo Bushi R2 (+Honor Rank to any single roll per turn)

"Desert Wind Strike" for Moto Bushi R3 (Attacks are simple action)

Note that I don't say they are bad, but the name implies something else.

I'll requote something: "The actual rules have them working as mini-stances". Which is what it should be. Why? Because a kata is a choreographed patterns of movements practised. So I don't see what's bad in the ruling, since it follows the essence of what's a kata.

Weapons

I kinda understand why 4e made the Katana the "best" weapon, but I don't really like that they did so. It sometimes feels like the choice is mostly "Does your school get greater benefits from not using a sword? No? Use a sword." I'd rather have the weapons somewhat comparable to each other with inherent advantages/disadvantages with the superiority of the Katana being something more cultural than mechanical.

I'll answer with a question. Did you say Tetsubo?

I never felt like that VP in the Katana's special abilities to be the best ability. (Lemme finish please!) Sure it's the only weapon with a special abilities, however, I usually need my VP for a lot more stuffs (10 dmg reduction, the +1k1 on very important rolls, techniques activation) so I never really used it. The dmg reduction saved my Kakita Duelist soo many times that I prefer to keep them to save my character, specially since my Storyteller kept attacking my Kakita with 2+ enemies.

Result, the special ability is interesting but I wouldn't trade all benefits from a favorite school weapons for the Katana for that ability. As for the "Did you say Tetsubo?" I feel like the Tetsubo in the Hida Bushi/Moto Bushi the "same bonus" without having to spend any VP. (3k3 + 1k0 from R1 technique) So between 4k2 -> 5k3 with VP and 4k3 all the time, I feel like the Tetsubo is better. (I'm not counting the skill bonus, because I know the Katana would be 5k2 -> 6k3 with VP, but comparing skill bonuses is another story)

Ah! How much did I houseruled here!!!

I've posted tons of this stuff in the old forums and one day or the other I'll tune up my pdf.

1) On Defensive Stances:

I agree with MaxKilljoy, those are needed.

Sometimes I've seen interesting things happening as turns go and people apply different techniques or kata to different stance choices.

2) On Kata:

Name is stupid but the concept is great: one of the few customizing sub-mechanics we got here.

The only problem that I see is that there are too few of them to let them shine as possible customizing factors.

I see them solving a lot of problems (e.g. weapon balance) and I've created tons of those.

Hell, we got hundreds of bloody Spells & Kihos and official Kata are so few..

3) On Maneuvers:

Everybody think "Feint and nothing else" since, in power-gaming terms, that's the best you can get.

But to me good crunch can get you good fluff, in terms of flavouring combat choices.

And a varied and intense combat is a due in any decent Samurai story.

I created more than 20 new maneuvers and I feel them making combat more fun and some under-used weapons (Yari, Dai-Tsuchi, Naginata, Knives, etc..) start shining if you choose the right maneuver.

When Spears start to impale, Knives can be used in a grapple and Dai-Tsuchi stun your enemies I think that more than a problem is resolved with maneuvers.

4) On weapons:

Rokugan your way. In my way a "Katana-only" Rokugan is boring.

BUt it's even more boring that everybody wants Tetsubo & Nodachi....

I created Katas and Maneuvers to make specific under-valued weapons to shine.

And I've even created variants and variants of weapons (one can see even 4 different types of what we call a "katana").

When you see chambara movies or read chambara stories there is always the theme of somebody having something special.

Think about Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress and that fantastic Yari duel which demonstrate how Reach is important.

Or thinking about Yoshikawa's Musashi I remember Sasaki Kojiro being famous for dueling with a Tachi instead than with a Katana: slower and more difficult to wield in a duel but longer reach to exploit in the hands of the right wielder.

Putting this flavour into mechanics make my own Rokugan better.

But I can understand that other people do not like it...but sometimes it's only boring preconcept on "too much crunch in combat" while over-crunching the supernatural is not a problem...

Something I was going to bring up in the skills thread was about Weapon skills. Is Weapon really a Macro skill, or is it a Tag that gets applied to a bunch of related but different skills?

Yes, 'Weapons' is a Macro Skill. From the rulebook:

Weapons (Various)

Sub-Type: Macro Skill ( Includes all the Weapon Skills listed below as well as any other weapon not covered by one of the pre-existing listed Skills

I realise that it's written into the rules as a Macro skill, but I don't think that's a justifiable ruling.

Firstly, the way you refer to a Macro skill is very specific Macro: subskill. Except they never do that for any of the Weapon skills. Do any of the schools say that the character gets Weapon: Kenjutsu? Do you require Weapon: Polearm for Kata? No, every kind of weapon is treated as a separate skill when being referred to elsewhere in the rules.

Secondly, theoretically the subskills of a specific Macro skills all work the same way mechanically, but Weapons don't. Each weapon has its own set of Mastery abilities.

Thirdly, each weapon skill gets its own writeup.

Seriously, I think that Weapon as a Macro skill was only created so that they could put "any one Weapon skill" on the School skill lists. They would have been better off just treating it like Social skills. That's how I'd do it in anything I was to do.

Firstly, the way you refer to a Macro skill is very specific Macro: subskill. Except they never do that for any of the Weapon skills. Do any of the schools say that the character gets Weapon: Kenjutsu? Do you require Weapon: Polearm for Kata?

Technically, you do. They don't include the 'Weapons:' foretag to avoid inconvenient Skill names, like Weapons: Chain Weapons (whoooopleeededooo, though I think Weapons: Ninjutsu is more confusing all things considered ). It is a purely editorial choice.

I've only gotten into L5R recently, but considering my fascination with the setting and how deep I already dived into the books, I'll bite as well.

• Mastery 3 - +skill to Armor TN when facing non-reach foe and in Defense, Full Defense, or Center.
• Mastery 5 - Free Raise when attacking non-reach foe.
• Mastery 7 - Mastery 3 bonus applies in Attack stance as well.

Five Rings Online has similarly houseruled some of the Mastery bonuses. For Polearms, for example, they have:

• Mastery 3 - Damage increased by +1k0.
• Mastery 5 - +skill to Armor TN during Skirmishes.
• Mastery 7 - Polearms may be readied as a Free Action.

Not quite as good as the first version above, as it misses out on the rather characterful "reach" aspect of Polearms, but still miles better than the RAW.

Reach is the single-one most remarkable advantage of a polearm, so I am a bit puzzled as to why it doesn't play a role in L5R unless you are playing with minis on a grid. You do not need visualization to consider reach; just looking at the weapons could suffice.

Thinking about it, Reach could even be added to the weapon profiles as well as some of the Advantages and Disadvantages, or even Maneuvers/Kata. For example, a Polearm gives you a Reach of 4, Swords have 3, Knives have 2. Being Small reduces your Reach by 1, being Large adds +1. Some Kata or Maneuvers may allow you +1 or +2 Reach, or reduce your Reach by 1 in exchange for a bonus to ATN, and so on.

A lot of potential to explore! Just have to be careful not to make things too complex.

Ohayo!

I've only gotten into L5R recently, but considering my fascination with the setting and how deep I already dived into the books, I'll bite as well.

Yay, it is Lynata! Welcome in Rokugan, acolyte/battle brother/fellow cultist/guardsman !

Okay, to celebrate this, I'll propose the combat system my gaming club uses for our homebrew (my quote from another topic):

The basic idea is that there are no more Free/Simple/Complex Actions. Each Action costs a number of points you must pay from your Initiative score when you perform that action. Then, your Initiative score decreases, probably giving you another chance to act at a lover Initiative to perform another action from your remaining Initiative score. The Character's Initiative roll is now Air Rung + Insight Rank / Air Ring, and the character can't spend more Initiative during the same Turn than 5 + Insight Rank + Air Ring x 10. This means that an average starting character (Air 2, Insight 1) will roll 3k2 for Initiative (average 15) and can spend up to 26 points of Initiative to perform Actions. Initiative is re-rolled at the start of each Turn.

Some example Actions and their Initiative cost would look something like this:

- Swift Attack (attack with a -4k0 Attack roll penalty): 5 points

- Light Attack (attack but cause only half damage): 7 points

- Normal Attack: 10 points

- Heavy Attack (attack with bonus to damage): 15 points

- Full Attack (Full Attack Stance transformed into an Action): 12 points

- Normal Defense (Defense Stance): 7 points

- Full Defense (Full Defense Stance): 15 points

- Free/Simple/Complex Move (as currently): 0 points/5 points/12 points

- Center Stance (now you can choose how much you focus - higher cost means better bonus) - 5 points/10 points/15 points

There would be many more of course, and many School Techniques and special abilities (like Kata) would also become Actions. There would be also abilities that allow the character to combine certain Actions and execute them at once if he can pay the combined cost (like a Kakita would be able to combine Center Stance with a Normal/Full Attack to represent the "One Strike"). Dual wielding would allow the character to perform Swift/Light Attack Actions with his second weapon at a decreased cost.

In addition, Wounds would be largely replaced with Momentum and the damage system would also take a rework. Momentum would work a lot like the current Wounds, so attacks deplete it through damage, and when it reaches zero, the character is in trouble. The difference is that a character has less Momentum (5 + Insight Rank + 10 x Earth Ring for a basic starting value of 26), but he does not gain any penalties for losing Momentum and he regains some (twice his Earth Ring) Momentum in each Reaction Stage. When a character's Momentum reaches zero, he is ''Disadvantaged" - he takes a Wound (pretty much the equivalent of taking a full Wound Rank currently with penalties and everything) but otherwise remains fully functional but his opponents can now perform the 'Execute' Action on him for 10 points to incapacitate him instantly (this is not an attack, and happens automatically once an opponent performs the Action) - however, his allies can also 'Revive' him for 15 points and remove the Disadvantaged condition from him. Wounds and insta-incapacitation may also happen if the character takes too much damage at once. Abilities would play with these things, like the Hida School Techniques would make it more costly to perform Execute on a Hida Bushi, and he would recover from being Disadvantaged on his own over time - on the other hand, a Bayushi Bushi would get a discount on Executing people and could perform Execute on non-Disadvantaged characters under certain circumstances.

For damage, the separate Damage roll is a goner. A character takes damage equal to the amount the Attack roll has exceeded his Armor TN plus the attacker's Strength x 2 plus the weapon's DR (a fixed number). Armor TN is now equal to the sum of all Rings + Insight Rank + 5 (basic average 16).

And now some more stuff:

- Combat has three Stages: Initiative (rolling for Initiative and such), Action (performing actions), Resolution (formerly known as Reaction).

- Readying a weapon of any type is free as long as you are a samurai.

- Spending a Void Point costs 1 Initiative. While this may sound trivial, it really isn't .

- One type of Action can be only performed once per Turn. So no Swift Attack spam, but you can combine Swift and Light Attack for more than one attack per Turn (with attack-Katas, you can make something like up to five attacks per Turn). Actions also cancel effects from previous actions, so if you use Full Defense, then make a Swift Attack, you lose the ATN bonus from Full Defense as soon as you make the attack.

- If the Damage goes to negative (because of Reduction or other special ability), then the negative Damage translates into a Momentum gain . You can actually "heal" your target with your attacks if you can't deal enough damage (in this case, you are just pissing him off even more, so his momentum/willingness-to-fight increases).

- There are actually two kinds of Katas: Active and Passive. Active Katas are actions - they have an Initiative cost, you perform them like any other action, and thus your character can do something awesomely special (usually a very flashy attack). Passive Katas must be activated for 3 Initiative (not a crippling cost) and they give a minor bonus (usually a defensive one) until you pop another Kata (Active or Passive) at which point they are automatically deactivated.

- Katas do not have requirements, their Rings and Mastery Levels only determine the XP cost the character must pay to buy them (the difference between the character's Ring and the Kata's Mastery Level, to a minimum of 0 XP).

- As you would suspect at this point, loading up with Katas and School Techniques is the key to victory. You can build up crazy Ultimate Combos and fully embrace the "Let the bodies hit the floor!" style of fighting even as a non-Bushi.

- The character can also gain "Stunt Dice": bonus unkept dice for his rolls, depending on how flashy his attack and how well the player describes it.

- This system is also used for "combats" in the court. Words replace weapons (Swift Attack = quick taunt, Full Attack = all-out verbal assault), Social/Artisan/Perform/Lore Skills replace the various fighting Skills. Courtiers still take Wounds (stress) from attacks, and yes, they can die from talking too much. The Mass Battle system also works similarly, with the various Actions now representing battlefield maneuvers.

The playtesting so far is promising. The system really puts the "magical" into the "samurai" .

It would have been just as easy, and more in line with the general pattern established in 4e, if they'd used Weapon as a tag instead of making it behave differently from all other Macro skills. But it doesn't make a huge difference either way.

I think it would be a good idea to talk about one of the most rule heavy part of most table top RPGs including L5R: Combat. The following is basically my general perspective on things and intended as a jumping off point for discussion. I'd like to focus on generalities of things rather than the mechanical specifics as we discuss this important part of the game.

Stances :

I like the concept of the 5 stances (Full Attack, Attack, Center, Defense and Full Defense) in l5r 4e. What I don't like is that using the Defense and Full Defense stances in may ways becomes "skip my turn" instead of an actual tactical choice that advances the combat. I'd like to see ways (such as rules for making counterattacks and defending to tire out opponents) that going into the Defense and Full Defense stances become meaningful tactical choices.

Kata

Kata in 4e drive me nuts. The name implies that they are a series of practiced forms used to build muscle memory and allow reflex like use of various movements (i.e. the one-two jab/cross combo in boxing). The description and individual names of the Kata treat them more like sub-styles of various schools. The actual rules have them working as mini-stances. I think this identity crisis along with the fact that learning Kata does not grant Insight is something that needs to be examined.

Maneuvers

I love the concept of Maneuvers. Being able to call raises in order to have more tactical options in combat is a great thing, but the requirement to call raises before the attack roll is made tends to leave them underutilized in a lot of cases. The variety of Maneuvers and their effects do not help either. Feinting for some reason increases damage and is potentially more effective than calling 3 Increased Damage raises. I also think that the some school techniques (for example the Daigotsu Bushi's IR5 Inhuman Assault technique) might be better if they were complex maneuvers that could be purchased for use.

Weapons

I kinda understand why 4e made the Katana the "best" weapon, but I don't really like that they did so. It sometimes feels like the choice is mostly "Does your school get greater benefits from not using a sword? No? Use a sword." I'd rather have the weapons somewhat comparable to each other with inherent advantages/disadvantages with the superiority of the Katana being something more cultural than mechanical.

Those are my thoughts for the start.

Oh! Oh! My turn!

Stances : Really like these, though I would like it if some schools or kata altered how they function in an interesting way. I have found my way using all 5 in the life of a single Bushi, so I can't complain that they don't get the job done as is, though.

Kata : With a few exceptions (thousand years of steel series, a few of the "Strength of" series. With crazy high prerequisites (the many of them being ring 4+) and effects that are so slight they aren't worth taking the time to learn. I really, really like the IDEA of these things, but without a reduction in requirements, or a major boost in effectiveness the vast majority of these are kind of worthless.

Maneuvers : With Feint basically being the better version of Increased Damage once you get a little higher Insight Rank, I think a few of these could be pruned, but otherwise I find them very viable. Good stuff

Weapons : I have found the only way to get the weapons even close to parity, is to really focus on combat movement and weapon reach. Spears are suddenly amazing when you can engage from behind someone in the defensive stance due to the increased reach. Same with polearms. Other wise, 99% of the time you're better off just using a Katana, which is really disappointing.

Sorry for taking a while to get back to people on this stuff.

The Defense stance is not a "skip my turn" stance, in fact, it's a very useful stance. First of all, it's the stance of the Shugenja, since he can cast spells in this stance.

You inadvertently brought up another problem with stances: Shugenja do not get much use out of them. The Defense stance is only the "stance of the shugenja" because it is the primary stance that a shugenja gains benefits from while casting spells. The Full Attack stance only benefits attacks, Attack stance has no effect on anything, and Full Defense prevents them from casting. Center could be useful, but most spells would not benefit much from +1k1+Void at the cost taking an additional round to cast.

For the Bushi, if he's a yojimbo, he's able to spend his action(s) into guarding one or two person, a yojimbo's job isn't always the best one, but the boost it gives, will help a lot, specially in a game where there's not a lot of players. A R2 Daidoji Iron Warrior as example will guard one round and attack the other and provides a very good cover for his allies, which becomes a great tactical choice.

The guard maneuver isn't limited to the Defense stance. It only requires a simple action in 4e, but I guess that is easy to miss in play due to attacks being complex actions prior to IR3/4 for bushi.

I guess calling Defense a "skip a turn" stance is a bit off, it is more a "I have no stance to better use right now" stance. I'm not really a fan of that kind of non-option choice.

I'll answer with a question. Did you say Tetsubo?

I never felt like that VP in the Katana's special abilities to be the best ability. (Lemme finish please!) Sure it's the only weapon with a special abilities, however, I usually need my VP for a lot more stuffs (10 dmg reduction, the +1k1 on very important rolls, techniques activation) so I never really used it. The dmg reduction saved my Kakita Duelist soo many times that I prefer to keep them to save my character, specially since my Storyteller kept attacking my Kakita with 2+ enemies.

Result, the special ability is interesting but I wouldn't trade all benefits from a favorite school weapons for the Katana for that ability. As for the "Did you say Tetsubo?" I feel like the Tetsubo in the Hida Bushi/Moto Bushi the "same bonus" without having to spend any VP. (3k3 + 1k0 from R1 technique) So between 4k2 -> 5k3 with VP and 4k3 all the time, I feel like the Tetsubo is better. (I'm not counting the skill bonus, because I know the Katana would be 5k2 -> 6k3 with VP, but comparing skill bonuses is another story)

Which is kinda my point. The 4e core book has about 39 weapons in it, but only about a quarter, maybe less, are actually viable weapons to use. When you have a 3 Str and a +1k0 damage bonus to Heavy Weapons, why use an Ono (4k4, average 24.4 damage) or a Dai Tsuichi (9k2, average 23.2) instead of a Tetsubo (7k3, average 28.2)?

you use an Ono when you are playing a Lion bushi and can use that one kata that lets you replace your honor for your strength score when rolling damage.....

That's very nice..

You inadvertently brought up another problem with stances: Shugenja do not get much use out of them. The Defense stance is only the "stance of the shugenja" because it is the primary stance that a shugenja gains benefits from while casting spells. The Full Attack stance only benefits attacks, Attack stance has no effect on anything, and Full Defense prevents them from casting. Center could be useful, but most spells would not benefit much from +1k1+Void at the cost taking an additional round to cast.

I wouldn't call that a problem, since stances are for combat and it's the role of the bushi. However, this doesn't stop the Shugenja to use something else than his spells, this is where the stances comes into play. I really see no problems. In my games, the Shugenja casts one or two spells offensive spells in combat, the rest of the time, they usually fight like other bushi, utilizing the stances like everyone. (This is mainly because they know they will probably need spells for other stuffs after the combat.)

The guard maneuver isn't limited to the Defense stance. It only requires a simple action in 4e, but I guess that is easy to miss in play due to attacks being complex actions prior to IR3/4 for bushi.

I guess calling Defense a "skip a turn" stance is a bit off, it is more a "I have no stance to better use right now" stance. I'm not really a fan of that kind of non-option choice.

I have never said it was limited to the Defense stance and I do know that bushi gain attacks as complexe actions in IR3/4. However, if he's guarding two people, it is a better stance. Also, the fact that "Guard" gives the bushi a TN penalty on himself, it may be a good idea to go into Defensive stance, to make sure he'll gain back some of his penalty.

I don't see the difference between you calling it "skip a turn" and "I have no stance to better use right now". I really like to see them used in skirmish tactics, where a "weak member" of the party gets the attentions of the enemies, runs from them (in defense stance) and the bushis jump in them in full attack stance.

Which is kinda my point. The 4e core book has about 39 weapons in it, but only about a quarter, maybe less, are actually viable weapons to use. When you have a 3 Str and a +1k0 damage bonus to Heavy Weapons, why use an Ono (4k4, average 24.4 damage) or a Dai Tsuichi (9k2, average 23.2) instead of a Tetsubo (7k3, average 28.2)?

They are all viable weapon to use, some are stronger, but they are all viable. I would use an Ono on a high Str character or, as mortthepirate said, a Lion with the Kata that replace the str value by the honor score., the Dai Tsuichi is also really nice too and is almost on par with the Katana (5k2 VS 3k2) giving a good alternative for someone who don't want to use a katana and doesn't want a high Str character, nice alternative in my opinion. The Tetsubo is the strongest, no need to deny.

However, I'll bring something that I feel it's more important to the weapon selection. Do you pick a weapon for its stats or for the style? I really prefer to select a weapon that will fit the style of my character and so what if it's not the best weapon. I would also add that when you compare the Ono to the Tetsubo, the average of nearly 4 dmg isn't much. It would be like asking why some policeman simply use a 9mm when they could have assault rifle, do they really need the most powerful weapon or simply a weapon that can do the job?

If you really want a character that will end up being a powerhouse, build a Hida Berserker, whatever his heavy weapon is, he'll destroy a target fast and he'll standing up for a long time... no matter his weapon. Here's the dmg adjusted for the three weapons you've stated:

weapon: DR (Avg) -> Berserk dmg (Avg)

Ono: 6k4 (31.3) -> 8k5 (40.7)

Dai Tsuichi: 10k2 (24) -> 10k4 (38.9)

Tetsubo: 9k3(30.9) -> 10k4 (38.9)

So yeah, the Tetsubo is stronger at first, but after a while, we can see it's getting par with the Dai Tsuichi once you hit the 12th rolling dice. It seems a lot and far, however, the Hida Berserker is a R2 path, which means that he'll have a "late R2" (when compared to other characters) since he'll need his Str 5. So in a R3 game, he'll probably just start R2 but has really high dmg output...

I think it's a question of saying what niches each weapon ought to fit into, and making sure the stats reflect that. I can't fill the entire list myself. However, in my mind:

Katana - You can take it anywhere.

Wakizashi - You can take it anywhere and not be challenged to duels.

No-dachi - Better damage for the same skill as the above.

Tetsubo - Goes through DR

Dai Tsuchi - Good damage with lower Strength?

Ono - is where I kind of fizzle out.

Dai Tsuchi - Good damage with lower Strength?

Ono - is where I kind of fizzle out.

Both weapons are better with higher (4 or better) Strength. The Dai Tsuchi is good for lucky players (more exploding damage dice) while the Ono is more for sure-play.

My feelings on weapons:

The divisions between weapon categories should be meaningful. In L5R, this is represented by the mastery abilities, which I think is a good approach -- though I do think some of the masteries could stand to be tweaked on an individual level (and I've house-ruled some of them in my campaign).

When it comes to the divisions between weapon types within a category, though, I become much more dubious. A lot of those are just stylistic variations between different regions or time periods, not meaningful distinctions in use or effect -- at least, not on the level of granularity worth paying attention to. I'd be fine with collapsing some of those together, the way the game did with the tanto and the aiguchi: rather than coming up with mechanical variation just for the sake of distinguishing one weapon type from another, just treat them the same and let the choice between them be a stylistic one. Where a given weapon really does have some kind of unique use (e.g. the sasumata being used to pin a target against a wall or the ground), though, it might be useful to represent that as a replacement mastery ability.

And that brings me around to the tension between the player's desire to use the "best" weapon (however "best" may be defined: most damage, best stats, most interesting, whatever) and the reality of where/how different types of weapon got used. Fundamentally, it shouldn't matter whether a ono has the best damage; you're not carrying that around town, not in any marginally realistic Rokugan. (Exception made for towns right near the Kaiu Wall.) You carry a sword because it's socially acceptable and a mark of status. You carry a knife because it's a utility object you can use to defend yourself in a pinch. You carry a sasumata because you're a magistrate on duty and are supposed to bring people in alive, at least sometimes. You carry a tonfa because you're a peasant and it's just the handle of your millstone, which you can also use to beat someone's head in. You carry a heavy weapon because you're headed to a battlefield against armored targets (or, in Rokugan, against supernatural targets that are really hard to kill). You don't carry a heavy weapon while wandering around town because it suits your character's build better than a katana does, or a tonfa because for some insane reason it's got k3 damage. But all those different skills and stats and so forth encourage you to pick the "best" weapon and specialize in it, rather than letting the different types each have their contextual niches. Hell, I sometimes think I'd be on board with all bushi-trained characters getting Crab Hands for free, rather than saying "sure, you can use a katana, but if the handle's too long it's a nagamaki and you're no better at using it than that courtier who has Agility 4 for dancing." Then maybe people would be more willing to let their weapon choices shift based on context.

I echo the sentiment that stances should remain in the game, but also that they need modification and improvement. I think the best way to do this is to make Kata and maneuvers rely on the stances themselves. I would suggest three things...

1) Combine kata and maneuvers into one system that builds on the stances.

Removing the awkward split between a few basic maneuvers and the optional kata system will cement them as a standard aspect of play. In this unified system, the players should have access to several different tactics based around each stance.

• Full Attack kata are all out offensive, breaking through armor, knocking down foes, and striking multiple opponents.
• Attack kata are more tactically offensive, with feints, precision strikes, called shots, etc.
• Defense kata allow counterattacks, ripostes, disarms, and other ways to turn the enemy's attacks against them.
• Full Defense provides kata for the glorious art of not dying, including blocks, evasion, and shrugging off ailments.
• Center kata allow insight, recovery, skill bonuses, and perhaps even mystical techniques.

2) Give katas keywords to denote different weapons.

Some techniques can be performed with just about any weapon (almost anything can feint), but some require more specific equipment (bracing against a charging foe is a distinctive polearm maneuver, and doesn't work with a warhammer). Each kata can therefore have one or more keywords denoting the weapon or weapons that can perform that technique, or a General keyword for those that work with everything. A kata that unleashes a fury of several attacks might only work with bladed weapons, while a powerful knockdown might require a hammer or polearm.

This ensures that your choice of weapon category focuses on the combat style, not the damage numbers. A spear will offer a different array of maneuvers than a katana, and a tetsubo grants the player a vastly different experience rather than a slightly different damage roll. Katanas may end up with the broadest array of abilities, but the different categories will still have individual gems that ensure they have a niche.

3) Each level of a weapon skill grants a kata.

Right now, players have to spend XP outside of their insight rank to uses katas, and weapons have haphazard bonuses at three different levels. Instead of this awkward design, make kata acquisition an automatic side effect of increasing weapon skill. As a samurai gains more mastery of a particular weapon, it's only natural that the basic techniques that aren't school specific would unfold before him.

So a character with seven ranks of katana will have access to seven katas, all of which will have the general or katana keywords. Meanwhile, another character with four ranks in archery and three in knives will have seven katas as well, split between the two weapons. Both players are supported by the system, since the katana character is an absolute master of one weapon, while the broader archer has techniques for both ranged and close up combat.

Gaining a kata per weapon level also gives the players room to divide their emphasis between the five stances. There's no major incentive to take only Full Attack katas if you can only execute one at a time, therefore players will be more likely to round out their characters with techniques for offense and defense.

It occurs to me that, if you take the various benefits currently from Mastery abilities and move them into Kata, you could then give a completely consistent set of Mastery abilities to the Weapon Macro skill.

That said, I think that 1 kata per level is a bit much: some schools would get 3 kata at character creation before spend the starting XP.

Can I suggest that Kata actually give enlightenment? It would be a way for increasing insight besides skill spam.

I'm tempted to say that Weapons 3 and 7 each offer a free Kata, and that other kata may be bought with experience.

It occurs to me that, if you take the various benefits currently from Mastery abilities and move them into Kata, you could then give a completely consistent set of Mastery abilities to the Weapon Macro skill.

That said, I think that 1 kata per level is a bit much: some schools would get 3 kata at character creation before spend the starting XP.

That would only be true if 5e followed the same character creation rules as 4e that include the "any one skill" exploit. That is more a problem with the current character creation rules and School design rather than an actual problem with the suggestion.

Can I suggest that Kata actually give enlightenment? It would be a way for increasing insight besides skill spam.

I actually like this idea. It always felt ironic that bushi often gained more combat potential from improving their courtly abilities than they did from improving their combat abilities.