46 minutes ago, Franwax said:

Yeah I do not have a clear view on that... maybe Earth shouldn’t be a dump stat for Courtiers as well? After all, a grounded mind is as important as a sharp wit when navigating the treacherous eddies of court

or maybe the answer is to look for on the Water side of the equation. Water is also the ring of charm, adaptability and companionable interaction between people, so it stands to reason that “social” characters should prioritize its development. And once they do, up goes their Composure.

Ultimately, all Samurai should strive to be well rounded (in theory). But on the topic of house rules, I tend to reach the conclusion that this aspect does not necessarily need an overhaul.

Hence why I did not overhaul it in the end

We are at version 4+ now! The composure change was removed a few weeks ago.

I still think early game, air ring character with super low composure have it "hard mode" but it balance itself since generally, you will not keep any of your ring super low, and especially not at 1 for long.

2 hours ago, Franwax said:

Actually, I can perfectly see a warrior in battle intentionally raking up Strife as a “power up” move to Unmask as soon as they can and become Enraged. Makes them more vulnerable but +2 Deadliness to their attacks and one Void Point the first time they down an opponent? Yes please!

Very fitting that the Fire Stance (the aggressive one) has a strong incentive to keep more Strife too.

If anything this illustrates why a warrior would want low composure - as your goal would be to fill your strife bar, not to have great capacity for strife. I actually ran into this in a recent session where a Matsu warrior struggled to become enraged, while I've had Scorpion Infiltrators become compromised within the first round of any scene.

The flaw is entirely in the concept - Earth is the ultimate passive stat, and as such it fits with endurance - your ability to move on unperturbed even as you are worn down. The facade that composure maintains is not your natural state. It isn't you being yourself, its you masking yourself. It is active camouflage, not a resistance of the natural state. In short, the face you wear, which composure maintains is a complete lie. This is why it fits with Air - the ring of deceit and cleverness. The face you wear is about casting a specific outward appearance - which includes remaining stoic as well as feigning emotion.

All this talk about Courtiers not needing composure and why warriors should have so much.. and I fail to understand why bushi types aren't concerned that their warriors have low vigilance - which is the stat which prevents you from being ambushed. It lets you see the traps and pit falls (literally) on the battlefield. Why are warriors denied this stat?

A simple fix to air lacking composure in social/duel scenarios. Opportunities. By default, water can recover strife mid conversation/duel better than any other ring, followed by void, while air possesses only the default mitigation option. If you gave air an opportunity to help them maintain composure, it would go a long way to mitigate their flimsy mask without disrupting base stat calculations.

(Ex: ** to recover strife equal to your vigilance. Harder to pull off than water and can require you overcommit, but in exchange it can recover more)

6 hours ago, shosuko said:

If anything this illustrates why a warrior would want low composure - as your goal would be to fill your strife bar, not to have great capacity for strife. I actually ran into this in a recent session where a Matsu warrior struggled to become enraged, while I've had Scorpion Infiltrators become compromised within the first round of any scene.

The flaw is entirely in the concept - Earth is the ultimate passive stat, and as such it fits with endurance - your ability to move on unperturbed even as you are worn down. The facade that composure maintains is not your natural state. It isn't you being yourself, its you masking yourself. It is active camouflage, not a resistance of the natural state. In short, the face you wear, which composure maintains is a complete lie. This is why it fits with Air - the ring of deceit and cleverness. The face you wear is about casting a specific outward appearance - which includes remaining stoic as well as feigning emotion.

All this talk about Courtiers not needing composure and why warriors should have so much.. and I fail to understand why bushi types aren't concerned that their warriors have low vigilance - which is the stat which prevents you from being ambushed. It lets you see the traps and pit falls (literally) on the battlefield. Why are warriors denied this stat?

Btw, i totally agree with your definition/understanding of composure.

This is also how I was imagining it. But then, you have stuff like pelting arrows kata that give strife.

So probably that for the designers strife is intended to be like willpower.

5 hours ago, Moderately said:

A simple fix to air lacking composure in social/duel scenarios. Opportunities. By default, water can recover strife mid conversation/duel better than any other ring, followed by void, while air possesses only the default mitigation option. If you gave air an opportunity to help them maintain composure, it would go a long way to mitigate their flimsy mask without disrupting base stat calculations.

(Ex: ** to recover strife equal to your vigilance. Harder to pull off than water and can require you overcommit, but in exchange it can recover more)

That could be an option.

Water already heals fatigue and it is Not part of endurance calculation.

So maybe Air healing strife would work. "Calming Breath"

would probably put the -2 strife of water into air instead (to make it simple) and give something new and fun, and also good though, to water.

still... I will probably run my game without changing that for now. It might not be as big as an issue since water ring is a very good courtier ring, its basically the "charm" skill, which is good because you don't always want to incite or deceive or be stoic.

it leaves scorpions (bayushi courtier) as the only overly unmasking courtier. but playing scorpion is HARD MODE anyway in this edition. so. be. it.

need to test this rule to add a disengage rule:

if you move out, or take a movement action that would take you out, of one or more opponent maximum melee or unarmed reach, you take fatigue equal to opponent's focus (the opponent with higher focus in case of multiple opponents) minus your vigilance UNLESS ? (need to find something).

1 hour ago, Avatar111 said:

need to test this rule to add a disengage rule:

if you move out, or take a movement action that would take you out, of one or more opponent maximum melee or unarmed reach, you take fatigue equal to opponent's focus (the opponent with higher focus in case of multiple opponents) minus your vigilance UNLESS ? (need to find something).

Out of seems a bit harsh (see the conversation in the other thread); since you can assume for simplicity that someone moving back with no opponent behind them can do so sensibly. But moving 'past' you should give you something. I'm not sure how to define that in rules terms, though - something like moving into and out of your range in one turn?

7 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Out of seems a bit harsh (see the conversation in the other thread); since you can assume for simplicity that someone moving back with no opponent behind them can do so sensibly. But moving 'past' you should give you something. I'm not sure how to define that in rules terms, though - something like moving into and out of your range in one turn?

yeah, it isn't that easy to find the right ruling so that it fits with the whole system.

i like Focus minus Vigilance, because i'm really into making both these secondary stat a bit more impactful. But yeah, it can't be so harsh without counterplay.

"moving in and out of your range in one turn" interesting. it could get a bit confusing when there are multiple opponents, would need to test.

can you move THRU an opponent in the core rule ? i forgot if there was any mention of that.

hmm yeah, the move in and out of reach is a bit too complex to keep track of in game.

probably better to leave it as only "get out of". in theory it shouldn't be that easy to just back off an opponent whos engaged in melee with you also.

Star Wars have a movement action to "disengage" but you can take up to 3 movement action per turn (if you take strain).

if getting out of range makes you suffer "focus - vigilance fatigue", unless you take a full range band movement to disengage prior to moving out...it could work. with the range band system. obviously, for ease of use, "disengage" would work for the full turn, no matter how many opponents reach you get out of.

meaning that in water without any roll, you could take a maneuvre action to move 2 range band so 1 disengage and 1 move out and still attack... but only in water. seems ok. considering water is a stance thant doesnt help offense or defense at all. other stance would need to either take the fatigue dmg (which could be low if you have high vigilance) or the maneuvre action but not being able to attack after.

also, if you want to use the full maneuvre with the check to run away, it would basically cost you only 1 range band to disengage then you can run the rest of the range bands away.

on a tactical grid it becomes trickier because it could be possible that you spend 1 or 2 square and still be within reach of an opponent and thus how would you calculate the cost to get out of the opponent's reach ? that is because with range bands there is no "beside or behind" you cannot move "around" somebody but you can do that on a grid.

probably the best way to deal with it is still having a "disengage" non-action option that would cost 1 range band (full 3 square move). so that if you spend one range band to activate "disengage" you are free to move out of as many opponents reach as you want this turn. these subsequent movements could be calculated with squares as normal on a tactical grid.

*still rambling*

-added a new "shove" action

-clarified the competitive check rules

So what I'm getting here is that you don't like mechanics and want to remove them in the most roundabout way possible. Opportunities with mechanical purposes other than critical strikes? Gone! School abilities once per turn? Gone! I've seen you talking about how your rules set is vastly superior to FFGs "broken" game all over the forum and, um, I'm not seeing it. I think you don't like dealing with things you can't easily manage or control from players. Also in regards to diagonal movement on a grid: it costs more for a reason and most iterations of D&D before 5th, which considers grids optional to begin with, counted 15ft for every two diagonal squares because diagonal movement gets you where you're going faster.

16 hours ago, Dathsa said:

So what I'm getting here is that you don't like mechanics and want to remove them in the most roundabout way possible. Opportunities with mechanical purposes other than critical strikes? Gone! School abilities once per turn? Gone! I've seen you talking about how your rules set is vastly superior to FFGs "broken" game all over the forum and, um, I'm not seeing it. I think you don't like dealing with things you can't easily manage or control from players. Also in regards to diagonal movement on a grid: it costs more for a reason and most iterations of D&D before 5th, which considers grids optional to begin with, counted 15ft for every two diagonal squares because diagonal movement gets you where you're going faster.

Opportunities on p.328 are still there. You didnt read properly. On p.329 i did not like the options, no. So we will use the narrative opportunities only, but one of the main reason is that I also dont want to overload the players with that many opportunity choices and I want them to focus more on the narrative usage of opportunities, to me, that makes the game more interesting. so I will only print them the p.328 for mechanical use. They can still come up with creative ideas and I can still be "influenced" by the examples on p.329. I simply don't take their mechanical effects for granted like i do for p.328.

re 2 times per scene instead of once per turn: School abilities are better balanced that way. Its not like I changed them for the most part, it is just a limit in usage. There was no reason the doji ability was once per scene while the asahina abililty was once per turn, for example. I do agree though, this houserule is one of the weakest houserule I have. I feel it balances everything (which I like) and reduce possible abuses (which I also like) but "twice per scene" is not as clean as I would like as it is another resource to manage. hence why I don't use "3 times per scene for this ability and 2 times per scene for this other one etc". I only use "twice per scene" to keep it as light on the bookkeeping as possible.

Diagonal movement. We dont want to bother with it costing more. It doesnt affect the gameplay for us. We are ok with it. There is probably a reason why d&d doesnt use diagonal movement anymore; it is tedious. (starting with 4th edition they removed it, and 4th edition was our best edition. i know right? blasphemy!). And my grid houserules are simply way, waaay better than the ffg ones that have huge discrepancies between their two systems (range based and grid based had two very different result in term of gameplay and action economy). with my houserules, you can switch between grid and range bands almost seamlessly! and, it isn't more complicated to use than the original system.

I fixed that. Like I fixed the duels. Like I fixed many other parts.

If you dont see it, or dont want to use any of my houserules. No problem. I really am not selling anything here.

If you want to simply challenge my rules for discussion's sake. I am cool with that. I have been known to modify these "work in progress" houserules MANY times. And many of those rules were heavily influenced (if not almost directly copied) by some other players houserules or concerns. It is a document that I put ton of hours in (both in design, discussion and testing), and I am still willing to be convinced one or more of its parts could be changed if you have the right convincing. And I am very welcoming to that type of discussion, if that interests you.

8 hours ago, Dathsa said:

School abilities once per turn? Gone!

...and nothing of value is lost.

The p.328 air opportunity spending to move along vertical surface.

This is just weird design. Considering all other physical movement like jumping would require a fitness check with a set TN.

So I asked myself the question, why is this one different?

Then I started reading what air means for martial skills. How it maneuvres in unexpected places etc.

So I thought it made sense to give air the ability to move along vertical surfaces as part of a movement action check (only the "maneuvre" action in skirmishes is a possible air movement check).

Obvious since the game is weird AF they say that water is the most expedient path and then give it all kind of ways to move more, but no ways to move acrobatically or to avoid anything. No way to "the most expedient path" (they gave that to air)

So it all doesnt make sense. Water basically just have more movement to run around the obstacles. Which i'm fine with, but their description is just awful.

So we will go like this;

Water have more movement range bands (free maneuvre action without check, or the 2 opp spending), but, by taking the maneuvre action air can use "acrobatics" when moving.

I like these gameplays IF you really impose that water cannot really perform acrobatics while moving and instead rely more on moving fast to go around obstacles. (Because if you give water the ability to climb/jump etc as part of the maneuvre action, even if you increase the TN, you basically made the air opp spending totally useless)

Now, lets go back to narrative mode (out of conflicts).

Jumping, climbing etc becomes "whatever ring you want". Mostly. As I could use fire to jump, but probably also air. And I could use air to climb, but also probably fire? Or water?

So out of conflict, theses movements are "unique action" that you can use whatever ring you want, but during a conflict, they become air only. Pretttty messy ruling if you ask me.

During a narrative you can tell your player it is ok to use fire stance to climb and give them a TN to make the climb.

But during a conflict, you tell them "nope, you have to use Air opportunity to do that!"

How.. illogic of a design.

What would be the check to jump in a skirmish?? What would be the number of range band you can jump, in a skirmish? You kind of have to include that also in the maneuvre action to make it work, or make it an opportunity spending like they did for climbing.

This rule system is so busted it makes my head hurt.

Climbing could be a set TN with fire ring in narrative, but then in a conflict it needs to be an air opportunity.

Bad design.

I need to find a way to fix athletic/acrobatic during skirmishes.

9 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

During a narrative you can tell your player it is ok to use fire stance to climb and give them a TN to make the climb.

But during a conflict, you tell them "nope, you have to use Air opportunity to do that!"

How.. illogic of a design.

No...at least not to me. During a conflict scene, you can climb at a stance-and-situation-suitable TN. Air lets you do it 'for free' as part of a regular movement action that's not climbing - so that the TN would be calculated for the movement ignoring the vertical range band. Because rings are defined by stances, conflicts are the one time you get to pretty much ignore the approach system and use whatever ring you're currently 'in' - at a cost of variations to TN and what opportunities you can use.

Taking an example: imagine a swordfight in an inn, which - in the finest Errol Flynn traditions - is occurring on both sides of the first floor walkway.

Fire Stance Samurai wants to get to the other side - they can leap down a distance, sprint a distance across the room, then clamber up a distance - meaning a relatively long way to go. Of course, in fire stance, they hopefully get many bonus successes from strife results, so make it - but probably need a calming breath or two to take a breather at the other end.

Air Stance Samurai wants to do the same thing - and would make the same check, but - rolling a couple of air opportunity results, can do the vertical bit of the move 'for free' and only needs to cover the horizontal bit. Narratively, one katana strike cleanly slices through the rope holding....something. Maybe a tapestry?.....later and they swing dramatically across to the other side, fresh as a daisy and with a +1 TN for any alert enemy to hit them in the following turn.

@Magnus Grendel

The problem with a stance and situation TN is that successes on a dice roll are easier to get than opportunities. So, for a 2 range band high wall to climb, what TN would you put so that it is not just better/easier than 2 air opportunities?

Remember, air opportunities only work "as part of a movement action check" which is only the maneuvre action in skirmishes.

If fire can only move 1 range band without taking the maneuvre action. Means he can only climb one range band during his turn? And that is if he was right beside the wall to begin with?

Orherwise, can you climb or jump as part of the maneuvre action??

Try to apply the rules to basic situations and see how weird it is;

Mechanically;

In a Skirmish, PC 1 is on the ground. 1 range band away from a house, that is 2 range band high, and there is an archer on the roof, 1 range band further than the ledge.

PC 1 decides to use the "maneuvre, tn2" action to get in the face of the archer (he also get a "free" one range band as part of his turn)

Explain to me, mechanically (his check) what would happen if he was in Air stance vs Water stance vs Fire stance (wont use earth or void because they probably simply be worst than the other stances)

And two more example, if you feel like it.

Same as situation, except being a wall to climb, it is a 2 range band gap to jump over. So 1 range band, then 2 range band gap, then another range band to reach the archer.

Third and last situation, same as first situation except this time the pc is on the roof. So 1 range band to reach ledge, 2 range band jump/climb down, one more range band to reach archer on the ground.

These 3 situations are as "basic" as it can get so there are a good starting point to figure out the mechanics.

1 hour ago, Avatar111 said:

In a Skirmish, PC 1 is on the ground. 1 range band away from a house, that is 2 range band high, and there is an archer on the roof, 1 range band further than the ledge.

PC 1 decides to use the "maneuvre, tn2" action to get in the face of the archer (he also get a "free" one range band as part of his turn)

Explain to me, mechanically (his check) what would happen if he was in Air stance vs Water stance vs Fire stance (wont use earth or void because they probably simply be worst than the other stances)

Remember that whilst the check on a manoeuvre action defaults to TN2, the TN will go up or down due to circumstances (e.g. terrain or conditions) as defined by the GM. 'Free moves' from air opportunities may let you 'skip over' the terrain increasing the TN, since the opportunity move is resolved before success or failure is determined.

• Fire Stance
  • You have no 'shortcut' here (but get extra bonus successes from fire stance)
  • Your free range band move gets you to the foot of the wall
  • You then perform a manoeuvre action, needing to climb 2 range bands and move a third 'normally' for a total of 3 range bands
  • This means you need to make a TN2 Fitness Check and succeed with at least 2 bonus successes.
  • For the sake of simplicity, I'll say that climbing the wall is equivalent to moving through entangling terrain, which will increase the TN of movement actions by +2 when determining success or failure.
  • Therefore you need 4 successes and 2 bonus successes (from either success icons or strife icons) on a Fitness check to reach the archer.
• Water Stance
  • You get a free 'no-check-action', which can be used to move an additional range band
  • Your free range band move gets you to the foot of the wall
  • You then perform a manoeuvre action, needing to climb 2 range bands
  • This means you need to make a TN2 Fitness Check and succeed. Again, consider it entangling terrain, will increase the TN by +2 when determining success or failure.
  • If you succeed, your free manoeuvre will get you from the top of the wall to the archer without needing a check
  • Therefore you need 4 successes on a Fitness check to reach the archer.
• Air Stance
  • You get the option of turning opportunities into 'free vertical movement'
  • Your free range band move gets you to the foot of the wall
  • You then perform a manoeuvre action, needing to climb 2 range bands and move a third 'normally' for a total of 3 range bands
  • This normally means you need to make a TN2 Fitness Check and succeed with at least 2 bonus successes. Again, consider it entangling terrain, will increase the TN by +2 when determining success or failure.
  • However, prior to determining success or failure, you can spend opportunities to move 1 range band vertically for each * spent. If you spend ** on the check, you have covered the entire vertical movement, and as such the TN increase from climbing will not apply - and, since you are only 1 range band from the archer, you don't actually need to succeed on the check anymore, as you move a minimum of 1 range band even if you fail.
  • Therefore you need either 4 successes and 2 bonus successes or 2 opportunities regardless of successes on a Fitness check to reach the archer.

Note: I accept this doesn't line up with the rules in one key detail - the concept that the TN can change mid-check; however, if spending an opportunity adds or removes an element between determining the TN of a check and resolving the Total Successes that changes the TN of the check (in this case "I bypass the entangling terrain"), I don't see why it wouldn't be 'recalculated'.

5 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

• Air Stance
  • You get the option of turning opportunities into 'free vertical movement'
  • Your free range band move gets you to the foot of the wall
  • You then perform a manoeuvre action, needing to climb 2 range bands and move a third 'normally' for a total of 3 range bands
  • This normally means you need to make a TN2 Fitness Check and succeed with at least 2 bonus successes. Again, consider it entangling terrain, will increase the TN by +2 when determining success or failure.
  • However, prior to determining success or failure, you can spend opportunities to move 1 range band vertically for each * spent. If you spend ** on the check, you have covered the entire vertical movement, and as such the TN increase from climbing will not apply - and, since you are only 1 range band from the archer, you don't actually need to succeed on the check anymore, as you move a minimum of 1 range band even if you fail.
  • Therefore you need either 4 successes and 2 bonus successes or 2 opportunities regardless of successes on a Fitness check to reach the archer.

Note: I accept this doesn't line up with the rules in one key detail - the concept that the TN can change mid-check; however, if spending an opportunity adds or removes an element between determining the TN of a check and resolving the Total Successes that changes the TN of the check (in this case "I bypass the entangling terrain"), I don't see why it wouldn't be 'recalculated'.

ok, now. the way you read the air opportunity spending is that it GIVES you an EXTRA range band of movement if it is on a vertical surface. that basically makes you faster than running on ground ? (you would need 2 bonus successes for an extra range band of movement as part of a maneuvre action).

i was clearly not reading the air opportunity as such, i simply thought it was enabling one of the range band you were already moving to be along a vertical surface.

obviously, the way you read it makes air opportunity REALLY good!!

can you confirm it does indeed give +1 range band and not just allow 1 range band to be along a vertical surface ?

12 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

can you confirm it does indeed give +1 range band and not just allow 1 range band to be along a vertical surface ?

My apologies, I misread.

Quote

During a Movement action check, up to 1 range band of any distance you move per * spent this way may be along a vertical surface

So you would still need to succeed and get 4 bonus successes*, but either you can pass a TN4 check (to take account of the vertical climb) or you can pass a TN2 check and have 2 opportunities to ignore the fact that it's vertical movement.

So either 6 successes or 4 successes and 2 opportunities, compared to 6 successes or 4 successes and 2 strife for fire, or 4 successes for water (which comes out the best for crossing terrain - as I guess it should).

Note that the '2 range bands' of vertical movement is a specific issue here, since you'd need to get opportunities to 'ignore' both to avoid the TN increase. Equally, treating it as TN+2 for entangling terrain might be understating it (so a situation which would be much more in favour of the air technique would be if it was TN+3 or more and only 1 range band. But that's splitting situation-specific hairs).

* Unless you're on a Horse, in which case....you have an antigravity horse, and you know what, let's not touch that one with a bargepole.

4 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

My apologies, I misread.

So you would still need to succeed and get 4 bonus successes*, but either you can pass a TN4 check (to take account of the vertical climb) or you can pass a TN2 check and have 2 opportunities to ignore the fact that it's vertical movement.

So either 6 successes or 4 successes and 2 opportunities, compared to 6 successes or 4 successes and 2 strife for fire, or 4 successes for water (which comes out the best for crossing terrain - as I guess it should).

Note that the '2 range bands' of vertical movement is a specific issue here, since you'd need to get opportunities to 'ignore' both to avoid the TN increase. Equally, treating it as TN+2 for entangling terrain might be understating it (so a situation which would be much more in favour of the air technique would be if it was TN+3 or more and only 1 range band. But that's splitting situation-specific hairs).

* Unless you're on a Horse, in which case....you have an antigravity horse, and you know what, let's not touch that one with a bargepole.

yeah, I also feel air stance is only better in a very few edge cases... if you allow other rings (especially water, but fire too) to do the same as air can do but with increase TN.

something is a bit wrong with that opportunity usage example I feel... thanks for helping figuring it out! appreciated.

42 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

yeah, I also feel air stance is only better in a very few edge cases... if you allow other rings (especially water, but fire too) to do the same as air can do but with increase TN.

something is a bit wrong with that opportunity usage example I feel... thanks for helping figuring it out! appreciated.

It depends how much the TN is increased, I guess.

If an air stance samurai can make it up a cliff, succeed or fail, on a Fitness check if they roll a single opportunity, whilst other samurai need to pass a high TN check, it becomes relevant.

The water stance **: move one range band (no strings attached) needs to be considered, too.

I don't think it's fair to mandate a specific stance for doing something in a conflict scene. A specific ring for a given approach outside a skirmish scene, yes, but a conflict scene stance 'locks' you into one ring for everything for the whole turn, and you're not likely to be doing anything more nuanced than 'move around the scene and inserting sharp bits of metal into your opponents'.

You can make the check as hard, and make it a full action rather than something you can do whilst covering horizontal ground at the same time, but a player should always have the opportunity to try .

10 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

It depends how much the TN is increased, I guess.

If an air stance samurai can make it up a cliff, succeed or fail, on a Fitness check if they roll a single opportunity, whilst other samurai need to pass a high TN check, it becomes relevant.

The water stance **: move one range band (no strings attached) needs to be considered, too.

I don't think it's fair to mandate a specific stance for doing something in a conflict scene. A specific ring for a given approach outside a skirmish scene, yes, but a conflict scene stance 'locks' you into one ring for everything for the whole turn, and you're not likely to be doing anything more nuanced than 'move around the scene and inserting sharp bits of metal into your opponents'.

You can make the check as hard, and make it a full action rather than something you can do whilst covering horizontal ground at the same time, but a player should always have the opportunity to try .

indeed. the opportunity to "try". that is where, mostly, the air opportunity falls flat. it isn't that good nor useful compared to just "trying" (especially with water ring) unless you crank than TN way up, and for short distances mostly.

after more thoughts...

I am thinking that it is the "maneuvre" action that is the most in need of fixing. It is so unusable for anything that isn't simply "running" that it is pathetic. nowhere does it talk about increasing TN to climb or jump for the skirmish maneuvre action, there are no details for anything aside "running" or "difficult terrain" (that you can totally disregard with 1 opp in earth stance anyway, so lets not use that for jump of climb shall we?).

so all those climbing, jumping, swimming etc are what ? unique actions ? that move me 1 range band ? i don't get it. the design is so awful that it blows my mind. sure, in narrative time you can ask for a fitness check to climb or what not, but in skirmishes, where range bands DO matter, the maneuvre action just doesn't cut it and the unique action can be so imprecise.

not sure how to fix that yet... but right now, the whole design of maneuvering in skirmishes is really bad and limiting...

thinking out loud;

since the maneuvre action is a TN 2 to move 2 range bands + an extra range band per 2 bonus successes,

any type of "athletic" check should be, at the fastest, as fast as the maneuvre action (which is like the optimal speed, unhindered, running).

in example, a jump over 2 range bands should be minimum TN2 and a jump over 3 range bands should be minimum a TN4. to keep in sync with the maneuvre action "speed".

but, climbing, swimming etc should probably be slower than that. how do we represent that slowness without just making the task more difficult ?

we could make a rule that to move 1 range band in a slower athletic way (swimming and climbing are the obvious ones, but probably other kind of athletic movement could be applicable too). that would make it (under normal circumstances, using the maneuvre action, without extra TN added): TN 2 to move one range band, TN 6 to move 2 range bands. which doesn't seem like a lot, but if you compare it with the regular maneuvre action... a TN 6 would make you move 4 range bands. which is basically; you can run twice as fast as you can climb/swim. which is allright i suppose.

though, please note this is only "climb speed" not necessarily if you can climb or not!! this is a measure of SPEED for SKIRMISHES. only. in regular narrative situation, a TN2 would be an easy climb one range band (but it could be more range bands since time doesnt matter, only difficulty of the climb matters during narrative).

difficulty of the climb can also increase the TN of the climb in skirmishes.

that also makes it that you CANNOT move even 1 range band in "climb mode" unless you pass a minimum Tn2 check (or use air opportunities) in skirmishes. which is also FINE.

and here is the Air Opportunity spending, adjusted to this;

instead of only "along vertical surfaces" add "along vertical surfaces and/or while perfoming an acrobatic stunt (slide, roll, vault, passing thru opponents etc)"

this change/buff was done for versatility's sake. more fun this way too.

in conclusion;

by defining climbing, swimming and other slower athletic movements, we make things clearer, more logical, and we make air opportunities a very good option, because 1 opportunity to change 1 range band into a climb becomes much more worthwhile.

ie: a regular maneuvre "climb" in X stance that isn't air you would need 2 successes to move 1 range band or 6 successes to move 2 range bands.

in air stance, you could climb 1 range band with 1 opp and 0 success. or, climb 2 range bands with 2 successes and 2 opportunities. etc. air would also work for uneven success numbers; if you get 3 successes and 1 opp, you could also climb 2 range bands.

we also keep athletic movements in line with the speed of the maneuvre action for skirmishes without causing a TN issue for narrative scenes.

@Magnus Grendel opinion ?

Maneuvre

Description: you shift on the battlefield, moving to a more advantageous position.

Activation: As a Movement action, you may reposition for more distance. Optionally, you may make a TN 2 Fitness check as part of this action.

effects: Move one range band.

If you choose to make the Fitness check, and you succeed, you may instead move two range bands, plus one additional range band per two bonus successes.

-If you intend to jump as part of this maneuvre action, you must say so before making the check. If you fail the check, you fall, otherwise you can jump over any distance of 10 foot or less. Jumping over 10 foot requires a Unique action.

-At the GM's discretion, if you want to perform an athletic movement that is slower than running, like climbing or swimming, to move one range band you need to spend two range bands of movement.