Given the descriptions of the ranges, I feel some adjustment is needed.

first, prevention of 0-3 in one success: While in reach of an opponent's readied weapon, each band is one square, rather than three.

Second, diagonal movement alternates 2 — 1 — 2 —1 etc. (This one I know from prior use works just fine. Ranges count the same way.)

Third, range band 4 should run to 30 grids, and band 5 to 100 grids (that's about 600'), and band 6 to 300 grids.

fourth, add more bands: 7 runs to horizon, 8 to province, 9 to region, 10 to rokugan. (Certain invocations can benefit from this.

why do you feel you need to prevent the 0-3 move ?

Unless you are in water stance, you can only move up to 3 squares per turn, that is almost nothing. In water stance you can do 6 squares (or more if you make it your full action with the check).

you find it too easy to "kite" while in water stance ?

for diagonals, is there a reason why you don't like the rules as is that basically you can only move in straight lines (so that a diagonal counts for 2 square). though, even if it isn't fully realistic, I don't understand why they didn't go same as D&D and make it that diagonal is one move. it isn't like its breaking anything and it makes it easier to keep track of.

anyway, would like to hear your thought on why you made the changes. i have not really looked at the range tracking rules yet for my houserules so i'm trying to gather information. right now we didn't really have problem with rules as written so i'm wondering.

The ranges is to make the movement more reflective of the ranges listed in the range bands table p 266.

I'm good with the restriction on movement when facing an armed enemy in reach. Turning your back on them usually gets one hurt. So does starting to run.

12 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

prevention of 0-3 in one success: While in reach of an opponent's readied weapon, each band is one square, rather than three.

I'm good with the restriction on movement when facing an armed enemy in reach. Turning your back on them usually gets one hurt. So does starting to run.

I agree with the idea, a bit like "attack of opportunities" in d&d, or the "disengage" action in ffg's starwars, but RAW, your rule also make going toward the opponent more complicated, which is probably not what you want (not sure but just wondering, but that is what the iron forest kata is all about, give people a hard time to get closer to you). This is a hard nerf to lower range weapons.

Consider a character who wants to get to range 0 of somebody with a polearm, and that start just outside the range of the polearm. Usually he would need 1 range band (3 squares) to get on top of the polearm wielder. with your rule, how would you make that work ?

i start at 3 square from the polearm wielder, i use a range band move (3 squares) and i start walking toward my opponent. 1 square, I enter within reach of his polearm. I have 2 more square left... what do I do ? I can't move anymore ? because i need a full range band to move 1 square now? so i use one more range band to move closer (i'm now at range 1 from him) and would need a 3rd range band to get to range 0 ?

that is to taxing i think...

your idea is hard to implement because of the 2 type of movement calculations (square or bands)

if it was only measured in squares all the time, you could say: if you want to LEAVE an opponent's reach, you need to spend one extra square of movement.

but since it can be measured in bands.. then it doesn't work.. would need to find some kind of rule that would work in every cases, and that would be only for leaving an opponent's reach. maybe take 1 fatigue when you leave an opponent's reach unless you spend your action doing "guard" then you can move out of his reach without taking the fatigue ? (just throwing that up, i just thought of it in an instant and didn't test it so don't judge it too harshly ).

anyway, I like your concept of penalizing people who wants to "disengage", but it needs polishing to make it work properly.

Actually, I have no issue with the added complexity. It's also not for disengagement; if you have 3 squares, and on the 1st or 2nd enter reach, you stop at entering reach (unless you have additional bands of movement left).

Overall, 5E complexity is low enough that a slight increase isn't a big issue.

The extra range bands are for invocations, mostly. They're all non-combat ranges, anyway.

The issue of bands is that they are still present in the combat system even when using the alternate rules, just not for movement.

While currently, AFAIK, no PC "movement & ____" techniques include actually moving, I expect some will, and those should not be auto-nerfed by using the Alternate Rule.

Quote

Consider a character who wants to get to range 0 of somebody with a polearm, and that start just outside the range of the polearm. Usually he would need 1 range band (3 squares) to get on top of the polearm wielder. with your rule, how would you make that work ?

Said polearm wielder would, under the standard rules as written(SRAW), have to close 1 band at a time.

Under the Alternate Rule As Written (ARAW) he'd close it with a single success. This is a problem, as there are kata to

Under my variant, he gets to Range 2, then each additional square is one additional band of movement.

So, assuming starting at, say, range 3 (6 grids)...

SRAW: he has to close 3 bands. He needs to close to range 2 (2 grids) then range 1 (1 grid) then range 0 (0 grids). He needs 3 successes (free move + run action for 2 bands) on a run to do it in one turn.

ARAW: He has to close 6 grids. He needs two bands of movement: one to close to 3 and one to close to 0. If in water stance, he can do this with no rolls and attack.

My variant: he has to close 6 grids... but... free move takes him to 3. second move stops at range 2. Third move stops at range 1, fourth move stops at range 0.

Now, at range 5

SRAW: he has to close 3 bands. He needs to close to range 2 (2 grids) then range 1 (1 grid) then range 0 (0 grids). He needs 3 successes (free move + run action for 2 bands) on a run to do it in one turn.

ARAW: Free move to 2, additional move to 0; in water, can close and strike.

My variant: free move to 2, action to move 2 bands. Needs 3 successes.

It's solving a problem introduced by the ARAW.

I only have one other issue I'm considering houseruling - attacks from surprise, or upon held/helpless targets, get -1 TN (to minimum 1).

24 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

So, assuming starting at, say, range 3 (6 grids)...

SRAW: he has to close 3 bands. He needs to close to range 2 (2 grids) then range 1 (1 grid) then range 0 (0 grids). He needs 3 successes (free move + run action for 2 bands) on a run to do it in one turn.

ARAW: He has to close 6 grids. He needs two bands of movement: one to close to 3 and one to close to 0. If in water stance, he can do this with no rolls and attack.

My variant: he has to close 6 grids... but... free move takes him to 3. second move stops at range 2. Third move stops at range 1, fourth move stops at range 0.

so

SRAW needs 3 range band

ARAW needs 6 square (2 range band)

Your Variant needs 4 range band (move 3, move 1, move 1, move 1)

i understand the problem that SRAW and ARAW that you bring up, and it is a real issue that i'll try to figure out.

but your variant also do not match up with neither araw or sraw.

unless i don't understand something ?

I'd rather it go longer than shorter.

Part of this is personal melee experience. (I've fenced in the SCA for many years, both melees and duels. I fought SCA heavy a little bit. I've marshalled heavy melees.)

Were it not for the handling time, AoEs are a better handling of this effect.

Expanding range 4 and 5 to their established descriptions is just basic common sense. One group of the two I run for prefers grids; the other, bands. Both feel that rapid closing in grids is a problem - in part, because it meant not being able to escape the oni in the beta adventure.

Of course, the simplest method is to just make 1 grid 1 band, and each band of movement 1 grid, but then the weapons make no sense.

allrighty then!

here is what we tried yesterday, it is strongly influenced by your houserule but made simpler/faster in game.

it went better than expected. its a rework of the Grid rules on p.266 that makes Grid rules much more similar to range band movement (to avoid discrepancies that happens under the core rules);

with these rules, you can switch between Range band movement and Grid based movement without concern.

-disregard the "diagonal squares" rule. make diagonal cost same as lateral. works in D&D, works here, works under the regular range band movement... and is simpler.

-disregard the "difficult squares" rule. in the core range band movement rule you are not slowed down by difficult terrain, so we remove that from the grid movement too.

-disregard the "combining movement" optional rule. won't work and won't be necessary with our system.

-keep the "resolving movement" rule.

and add;

-moving inside or while inside of range 2 from any hostile opponent = one range band makes you move 1 square

-moving outside, or, from and away range 2 from any hostile opponent = one range band makes you move 3 squares

-you cannot split movement squares, if you don't use the full 3 squares for whatever reason, the left over are discarded.

example:

if you are at range 2, you can move away three squares in one range band movement.

if you are at range 1, you can move to range 2 in one range band movement.

if you are at range 2, you can move to range 1 in one range band movement.

so, the moment you enter range 2, the leftover of your movement is done (if you had any squares left).

to be able to move 3 squares per range band, you need to be in the clear, meaning, not within range 2 of ANY hostile.