If the bushi with the trapped weapon wanted to move away they’d have to let go of their weapon, or take some sort of action to free it from the entanglement.

Just now, Mark It Zero said:

If the bushi with the trapped weapon wanted to move away they’d have to let go of their weapon, or take some sort of action to free it from the entanglement.

wow. that could makes CSS even better than it is now.

Sounds a lot like Jury Rigged + Auto Fire in EotE. Not unbeatable, but a ridiculous amount of power in a fight.

While I get the Opp = Vigilance house rule, wouldn't just making it 2 Opp to activate be a decent bandaid?

6 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

wow. that could makes CSS even better than it is now.

How so? I’m still nerfing any attempt at binding multiple weapons...and the weapon is still unusable for one turn as written. Once the effect ends, the warrior can retrieve their weapon. PLUS I’m also nerfing the technique by making both weapons unusable for the duration.

I am effectively doing nothing but limiting the part you seem to hate the most.

Either way I’m satisfied with my own interpretation, I hope you can come to terms with it in your own way too.

1 minute ago, Mark It Zero said:

How so? I’m still nerfing any attempt at binding multiple weapons...and the weapon is still unusable for one turn as written. Once the effect ends, the warrior can retrieve their weapon. PLUS I’m also nerfing the technique by making both weapons unusable for the duration.

I am effectively doing nothing but limiting the part you seem to hate the most.

Either way I’m satisfied with my own interpretation, I hope you can come to terms with it in your own way too.

oh i see, basically you are saying that if you bind the target's weapon, you are not dealing damage this turn with your weapon ?

7 minutes ago, Delahunt444 said:

Sounds a lot like Jury Rigged + Auto Fire in EotE. Not unbeatable, but a ridiculous amount of power in a fight.

While I get the Opp = Vigilance house rule, wouldn't just making it 2 Opp to activate be a decent bandaid?

im at this point right now (let me know your opinion if you want):

Coiling Serpent Strike: add: reduce the difficulty to immobilize the target with the snare weapon quality by 1 (minimum of 1) .

change both opp usage too:

1opp: Choose a weapon the target has readied; any attack action check the target make using that weapon are increase by +1tn until the end of your next turn while he is within reach of your weapon with snaring quality.

2opp: choose a weapon the target has readied; that weapon cannot be used for attack actions until the end of your next turn while he is within reach of your weapon with snaring quality.

(regarding your question; the 2 opp is a decent bandaid. I still have issue with the immobilize being a bit redundant with the basic snare weapon quality, and the fact that even if the guy move away he still cannot use his weapon, but as a "minimal change" it is probably ok)

8 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

oh i see, basically you are saying that if you bind the target's weapon, you are not dealing damage this turn with your weapon ?

Mmm, not necessarily if the technique doesn’t already cause that effect. I can see the effect still causing fatigue, or even a crit. **** it would be dope if a character managed to crit and entangle a weapon.

Sorta like when a ninja entangles an enemies sword and ends up causing them to stab themself, or the trident pins their weapon against their body and pierces their shoulder at the same time.

HOWEVER neither character can attack with either weapon until the end of the next turn, unless they can somehow untangle themselves before hand.

I don’t mind it being in addition to damage, just can’t see how a weapon can bind one or multiple weapons and itself still be serviceable while they are entangled. I think curbing that absurd notion nearly cleans up this technique.

1 minute ago, Avatar111 said:

im at this point right now (let me know your opinion if you want):

Coiling Serpent Strike: add: reduce the difficulty to immobilize the target with the snare weapon quality by 1 (minimum of 1) .

change both opp usage too:

1opp: Choose a weapon the target has readied; any attack action check the target make using that weapon are increase by +1tn until the end of your next turn while he is within reach of your weapon with snaring quality.

2opp: choose a weapon the target has readied; that weapon cannot be used for attack actions until the end of your next turn while he is within reach of your weapon with snaring quality.

I actually really like that. May have to steal if it comes up in a game I run!

Okay, I got some answers from FFG myself.

1) If an effect allows you to take an action (such as a finishing blow allowing you to take an attack action in a clash or a duel) does that action have to have all the subtypes allowed, or only one of them. In the example above, a Finishing Blow allows an attack action. The Crossing Cut kata is and attack and a movement action. Would the Crossing Cut kata be invalid for the Finishing Blow as it has more than one subtype, or would it be valid because it has the requested subtype?

1). When an effect allows a character to perform an "X action" (such as the Attack action allowed by a Finishing Blow), it means they can perform any action that possesses that type—even if it possesses other types as well.

So Crossing Cut can indeed be used for a Finishing Blow (and so can any other Attack and [another type] action).

2)If a critical hit is reduced to a strength 0 critical hit, has a critical hit still taken place for effects that track them?

2). A critical strike that is reduced to 0–2 still counts as a critical strike, and thus can be used to end a duel to First Strike or activate the Matsu Berserker's school ability.

Think of this as the classic samurai trope of the two warriors withdrawing and then a sleeve being cut, or a bit of one's hair falling to the ground a moment later.

1 minute ago, Mark It Zero said:

Mmm, not necessarily if the technique doesn’t already cause that effect. I can see the effect still causing fatigue, or even a crit. **** it would be dope if a character managed to crit and entangle a weapon.

Sorta like when a ninja entangles an enemies sword and ends up causing them to stab themselves, or the trident pins their weapon against their body and pierces their shoulder at the same time.

HOWEVER neither character can attack with either weapon until the end of the next turn, unless they can somehow untangle themselves before hand.

I don’t mind it being in addition to damage, just can’t see how a weapon can bind one or then multiple weapons and itself still be serviceable while they are entangled. I think curbing that absurd notion nearly cleans up this technique.

but then, the dude with the trident attack, does dmg and entangle the other dude's weapon.

when it is the trident's guy turn again, he can still attack ? i don't see how you are making this work. you would need to put it into concise words/rule for me to get it

20 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

but then, the dude with the trident attack, does dmg and entangle the other dude's weapon.

when it is the trident's guy turn again, he can still attack ? i don't see how you are making this work. you would need to put it into concise words/rule for me to get it

It’s simple, if I pin your sword down with my trident, I can still deal damage during the pin, if the sharp bits of the weapon still hit you. In order to keep your sword pinned for a full turn, I would have to leave my trident where it is thereby being unable to attack you again with it until the effect ends.

It might help if I elaborate on how I envision a fight in game. Combat happens fast, and actions overlap more than the turn order might make them seem. Between turns players are already lining up their next move, shifting stances, dancing around one another, taking jabs at each other, winding up a swing, or what have you.

With that in mind, cinematically, the trident would have to be mobile (and thus not currently trapping another weapon) to be usable on your next turn. Just as much as it forces the same condition on the enemy’s own weapon.

So the new wording for me amounts to:

*: Choose one weapon a target has readied; that weapon cannot be used for Attack actions. Your weapon cannot be used for Attack actions. This effect persists until the end of your next turn.

* = Opportunity. Notice the lack of a + after the one opportunity cost.

Also, it might help if I clarify that I do not see CSS as a disarm, which would allow you to continue using the weapon you performed the disarm with. I see it as two characters locking weapons, or a chain entangling their sword, and maybe even their sword arm. Implying prolonged contact, and less usefulness for both weapons during that time.

You guys can now all thank me, because I got you a BOW WITH SNARING (you still can't CSS with it). Actually, I got you an ANYTHING YOU WANT WITH SNARING.

Q: Bo of Water invocation:
The staff you create with the invocation has Snaring. Does the weapon retain the Snaring property if I pay Opps to summon a different type of weapon, or if I later turn the staff into a different weapon? The way the text is written says "no" (though it's now unclear on what happens if then I switch the new weapon BACK into the staff; does the new staff have Snaring?), but I wanted to make sure.

A: As sentence reads "It has the Snaring quality," "it" here refers to the weapon, which has Snaring in whatever state it takes (whether you use a Water <OP> to change its form or do so at the end of the round).

2 minutes ago, JBento said:

You guys can now all thank me, because I got you a BOW WITH SNARING (you still can't CSS with it). Actually, I got you an ANYTHING YOU WANT WITH SNARING.

Q: Bo of Water invocation:
The staff you create with the invocation has Snaring. Does the weapon retain the Snaring property if I pay Opps to summon a different type of weapon, or if I later turn the staff into a different weapon? The way the text is written says "no" (though it's now unclear on what happens if then I switch the new weapon BACK into the staff; does the new staff have Snaring?), but I wanted to make sure.

A: As sentence reads "It has the Snaring quality," "it" here refers to the weapon, which has Snaring in whatever state it takes (whether you use a Water <OP> to change its form or do so at the end of the round).

a bow with snaring is ok (can immobilize, but it is expensive in opportunities), as long as it cannot use CSS. we are fine!

6 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

a bow with snaring is ok (can immobilize, but it is expensive in opportunities), as long as it cannot use CSS. we are fine!

Fear the mighty snaring katana/nodachi/bisento/tetsubo!

@FFGDerek - Do you mind moving this thread to the Rules Questions subforum?

Edit: Thank you, kindly moderator!

On 10/27/2018 at 7:51 PM, UnitOmega said:

L5R has not and never will be D&D (except maybe when WoTC owned part of it), people who insist on playing it as such will have a bad time for going outside the design scope and intent.

D&D3.5/D20 Rokugan was a thing. Drop the maybe. It was hideous as L5R, but decent (well as decent as anything D&D 3.X gets) as D&D OA.

On 10/27/2018 at 7:51 PM, UnitOmega said:

Plus like @Amanda the Panda says, if you get known to be "that dork with the trident" it's perfectly okay for the GM to have people know this and plan accordingly. That's not meta, that's "hey, it's that buttface with a trident causing trouble in our neighborhood, he's constantly using the Coiling Serpent Style".

Yep. QFT.

Part of the issue is there are several people who are unable or unwilling to say, "Story trumps rules" and several who ignore the glory and honor penalties for violations of social customs. Either of which is broken for any game that isn't balanced as if a miniatures wargame.

While most of this discussion about CCS seems to come down to munchinism vs. narativism. Yet in roleplaying games unlike boardgames and wargames all actions stems from the logic inherent in the game world.

In other words, no matter what a rule states is possible, for a character to be able to perform an action, the GM and/or Player needs to be able to answer the question; How?

If it impossible to do that without breaking the logic of the game world then the character is unable to take that action no matter what the rules says.

For example, if a character armed with a Jitte fight an opponent with two sword then it is logical for the character to use CSS to snare one of the swords with the jitte. However, the Jitte only have one prong meant to trap blades with. If it's filled then a jitte is just a stick and you can't snare anything with a stick. So even if the player rolled multiple Ops then the logic dictates that he can only use a single one to snare a single blade with the Jitte. Unless the player can come up with a logical answer to the question of How, (for example he use his free hand to grab the other arm of his opponent), then the rest of the Ops are wasted, despite the rule.

IMHO, the Tirdent would be even more troublesome to explain snaring more than one weapon since as a pole arm needing 2 hands and with a range of 2 it wouldn't allow the character from grabbing with a free hand.

Most rules in RPGs are balanced by what's possible in the game world from a logical stand point, even when on paper a rule as written when taken out of context might seem broken or overpowered.

7 minutes ago, Chryckan said:

While most of this discussion about CCS seems to come down to munchinism vs. narativism. Yet in roleplaying games unlike boardgames and wargames all actions stems from the logic inherent in the game world.

In other words, no matter what a rule states is possible, for a character to be able to perform an action, the GM and/or Player needs to be able to answer the question; How?

If it impossible to do that without breaking the logic of the game world then the character is unable to take that action no matter what the rules says.

For example, if a character armed with a Jitte fight an opponent with two sword then it is logical for the character to use CSS to snare one of the swords with the jitte. However, the Jitte only have one prong meant to trap blades with. If it's filled then a jitte is just a stick and you can't snare anything with a stick. So even if the player rolled multiple Ops then the logic dictates that he can only use a single one to snare a single blade with the Jitte. Unless the player can come up with a logical answer to the question of How, (for example he use his free hand to grab the other arm of his opponent), then the rest of the Ops are wasted, despite the rule.

IMHO, the Tirdent would be even more troublesome to explain snaring more than one weapon since as a pole arm needing 2 hands and with a range of 2 it wouldn't allow the character from grabbing with a free hand.

Most rules in RPGs are balanced by what's possible in the game world from a logical stand point, even when on paper a rule as written when taken out of context might seem broken or overpowered.

what you say makes sense. but then I can imagine some very heated arguments at some tables because a player will come up with a way that it would be "possible" to snare 2 weapons with 1 trident...

plus right now, if you snare a weapon, but the opponent on his turn moves away from you, he still cannot use his weapon (which doesn't make any sense logically)

i mean...

sure, you can add layers and layers of your own logic and interpretation on top of it and say that the opponent cannot move away from you unless he leaves his weapon there etc... but it becomes a different rule at this point.

so, no matter what, bottom line is that CSS rule is poorly designed as a "mechanical rule". no excusing that really.

I'll be honest: I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA how CSS is supposed to work descriptively, but it's certainly not by trapping the weapon, seeing as the target can just, for isntance, sheath it if they want.

11 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

what you say makes sense. but then I can imagine some very heated arguments at some tables because a player will come up with a way that it would be "possible" to snare 2 weapons with 1 trident...

plus right now, if you snare a weapon, but the opponent on his turn moves away from you, he still cannot use his weapon (which doesn't make any sense logically)

i mean...

sure, you can add layers and layers of your own logic and interpretation on top of it and say that the opponent cannot move away from you unless he leaves his weapon there etc... but it becomes a different rule at this point.

so, no matter what, bottom line is that CSS rule is poorly designed as a "mechanical rule". no excusing that really.

Actually, what I say is RAW.

Pg. 174 in the Core Rulebook. The last sentence in the first paragraph under Kata. "...as common sense and the GM's discretion dictates."

If a player can answer the question "How" by describing a cool way to trap a 2 weapons at the same time with a trident that follows the inherent logic of the scene I as a GM would say go for it. If on the answer on the other hand was just a strained way to exploit the CCS I'd say nice try but no instead. Same thing if he tried to repeat the cool way over and over.

I agree that the rule could have been better written to make it clearer but I don't think it's broken or OP since it is reined in by other rules.

As for walking away while still having a trapped weapon is actually quite easy to explain, both logically and descriptive. The act of untangling the trapped weapon might free it but in no way puts it in a state to be used, it might have become unbalanced or pushed out of position or forced into an award angel. Any one thing which would explain why it would take a turn for the weapon to be prepared to be used again.

Ever pulled a stuck axe out of a log? It might get free but the weight and momentum of the axehead usually makes you more concerned about not hurting yourself than lining the axe up for another chop.

8 hours ago, JBento said:

I'll be honest: I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA how CSS is supposed to work descriptively, but it's certainly not by trapping the weapon, seeing as the target can just, for isntance, sheath it if they want.

First of why would anyone sheath a weapon when fighting for their lives? Still, a sheathed weapon is technically trapped and if a player wanted to use CSS to force an opponent to sheath his weapon that would fall under the awesome category and would totally happen.

After all I've seen plenty of amazing kung-fu fights in movies were the sheathing and unsheathing of a sword frequently happens as part of either side trying to trap it or free it.

If I may be so rude to become a bit personal for a moment but if seems that the largest problems folk have with CCS is a lack of imagination.

1 hour ago, Chryckan said:

If I may be so rude to become a bit personal for a moment but if seems that the largest problems folk have with CCS is a lack of imagination.

Sure, if you want to "judge" everytime if the player is allowed or not to use the skill, if it makes sense or not etc.

All good. Enjoy. Hope your player is also in that mindset.

A good rule doesn't need that kind of hand holding or imaginative gymnastic and to come to a different conclusion if it is usable everytime a player attempt it though. So, it is poorly designed. Though yes, I can use imagination and make it work as you suggest (no im not lacking imagination, thank you) I find that mostly annoying and unfun because it will happen almost every time the player with CSS takes a turn in a combat.

Bad design is bad design, no matter how you try to fix it by applying a veto on it everytime it is attempted.

2 hours ago, Chryckan said:

First of why would anyone sheath a weapon when fighting for their lives? Still, a sheathed weapon is technically trapped and if a player wanted to use CSS to force an opponent to sheath his weapon that would fall under the awesome category and would totally happen.

After all I've seen plenty of amazing kung-fu fights in movies were the sheathing and unsheathing of a sword frequently happens as part of either side trying to trap it or free it.

If I may be so rude to become a bit personal for a moment but if seems that the largest problems folk have with CCS is a lack of imagination.

Because it makes the weapon immune to CSS and lets them Iai with it the next round, for one. Who's lacking imagination now?

The point is, there IS no weapon trapping. The target can do literally ANYTHING he wants with the weapon except attack with it. In fact, he can toss it to an ally if he so chooses, and that ally STILL can't attack with it.

Also note that CSS in no way commits your own weapon. If you happen to get a chance to attack with it later, you totally can (and you can CSS then, too).

As far as I can tell, what CSS seems to do is imbue weapons with a pacifist spirit that refuses to attack. "Strike my foe." "Nah, fam, we good."

There is one relatively easy way to catch two weapons at the same time. It really just depends upon how the attacker attacks. If he swings both weapons simultaneously, either parallel or intersecting, it'll be pretty straight forward to trap them.

12 hours ago, JBento said:

Because it makes the weapon immune to CSS and lets them Iai with it the next round, for one. Who's lacking imagination now?

The point is, there IS no weapon trapping. The target can do literally ANYTHING he wants with the weapon except attack with it. In fact, he can toss it to an ally if he so chooses, and that ally STILL can't attack with it.

Real-world weapon binds tend to actually not be grapples of the weapon. Fastest way to break free of my hilt bind (using a rapier) is to take your blade offline from me. Disarming is a separate technique.

With a quillon-less weapon, binds are usually of the "press" variety: I force your blade against yourself. Pretty much, anything BUT hitting me is doable.

Lesser used, but still practical with curved blades vs , is the coiled pin - it's usually used to disarm. I hook my backedge around yours, apply leverage, and then attack offhand. I've done it with scimitar, once, and had it done to me more than once; it's impossible with a rapier. If I keep the tension, you have to move with it, withdraw, or let go.

Sai and Jitte, have trapping arms - you slot the blade, and twist to hold. A straight retreat can often defeat it, as can simply pulling up hard. Too strong a twist near the end of the trapped blade with the sai or jitte, and you can potentially snap the trapped blade.