I read that on reddit and was amused;

---

---

ok sure, shes a bit off because the dude is still compromised and wounded on two rings, so not acting "as normal". Though, the point still kind of stand, you can be totally maimed but still be "relatively ok", and that happens a lot if you have a guy with lots of physical resistance.

isn't there a point at which the character should be forcefully incapacitated or something ? shouldn't a scar disadvantage automatically fill your endurance and put you incapacitated ? sure, you could use a calming breath, or first aid, or invocation heal to still act maybe, but at least you're not fresh as a rose with almost no fatigue but one arm cut off, you would still be close to incapacitated. which seems to make more sense.

thinking.

also, any of you had the following issue: " It's currently basically heartpiercing strike or go home anyway, unless you want to spend an hour whittling down fatigue." ?

on high armor targets ?

58 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

I read that on reddit and was amused;

---

Lady_Lazuli

Dragon Clan 1 point · 12 hours ago

We were at a point where a man had been blinded and lost an arm, but couldn't suffer bleed damage because he was compromised and couldn't keep strife, nor was he incapacitated because he still had plenty of fatigue left. Long as he didn't use those two rings, he could basically act as normal.

---

ok sure, shes a bit off because the dude is still compromised and wounded on two rings, so not acting "as normal". Though, the point still kind of stand, you can be totally maimed but still be "relatively ok", and that happens a lot if you have a guy with lots of physical resistance.

isn't there a point at which the character should be forcefully incapacitated or something ? shouldn't a scar disadvantage automatically fill your endurance and put you incapacitated ? sure, you could use a calming breath, or first aid, or invocation heal to still act maybe, but at least you're not fresh as a rose with almost no fatigue but one arm cut off, you would still be close to incapacitated. which seems to make more sense.

thinking.

Every time a PC takes a scar injury, they're bleeding.

Bleeding is NOT ring limited. Each strife symbol kept, whether or not it generates strife, is one fatigue (ignores armor). And it doesn't matter if it's an action or not. (271)

Fatigue over end and ANY crit = unconscious plus the crit. (273).

So, even if the lower sidebar is ignored, enough crits will force enough strife to eventually wear down the fatigue. Also note that the severity of the bleeding is equal to current fatigue - the tougher they are, the longer before bleeding affects them, but the less time they have when it does hit them.

There is a side rule on the same page as the Critical Damage table (right next to it), and it essentially says that if a character would get a second Scar Disadvantage then the GM can give them Dying (5) instead . Emphasis is mine - it is either a second Scar Disad OR Dying (5). It is essentially there to prevent the Black Knight Syndrome at the cost of actually downgrading the received damage.

13 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

Bleeding is NOT ring limited. Each strife symbol kept, whether or not it generates strife, is one fatigue (ignores armor). And it doesn't matter if it's an action or not. (271)

The character in the example is Compromised so they can't keep Strife. No Strife -> no Bleeding. And, of course, if the player simply chooses to not keep Strife anyway then Bleeding will have no effect either.

1 minute ago, AtoMaki said:

There is a side rule on the same page as the Critical Damage table (right next to it), and it essentially says that if a character would get a second Scar Disadvantage then the GM can give them Dying (5) instead . Emphasis is mine - it is either a second Scar Disad OR Dying (5). It is essentially there to prevent the Black Knight Syndrome at the cost of actually downgrading the received damage.

The character in the example is Compromised so they can't keep Strife. No Strife -> no Bleeding. And, of course, if the player simply chooses to not keep Strife anyway then Bleeding will have no effect either.

so you can get a crit on your fire ring, lose an arm, then get a crit on your air ring ... lose something else.

and still be standing up like a real punk. and use water ring to attack with merely no drawback (maybe bleeding, but then again, you could remove it with 1 turn, or a friend remove it from you)

i'm really just discussing on her point of view. I thought it made a bit of sense what shes saying. but i'm not taking any stance until we talk about it some more

I thought the optional rule is if they would suffer the SAME scar disadvantage then they can get dying. I may be wrong on that. But it does bring up the question of how many disadvantages can affect a roll. As a rather harsh GM I would apply those Blind and One arm disadvantages to EVERY roll for the rest of the fight because your character hasnt had the time to acclimate to them. So reroll 2 successes, and if you still have them reroll again for every roll. Even with fatigue left how long do you think youre going to last?

Of course each table is different, and maybe you're supposed to limit each roll to only 1 disad. I like things a little more difficult. What would you all do in that situation?

I should probably add that I don't limit advantages/disadvantages to a specific ring. To me if it makes sense then it applies.

Just now, Avatar111 said:

so you can get a crit on your fire ring, lose an arm, then get a crit on your air ring ... lose something else.

and still be standing up like a real punk. and use water ring to attack with merely no drawback (maybe bleeding, but then again, you could remove it with 1 turn, or a friend remove it from you)

When you would lose something else you will most likely gain Dying (5) instead unless your GM wants to play that game. Also, the Disad does take effect, so even if you switch to different Rings, you still get to re-roll those dice (the assigned Ring for the Disad is only a guideline, the description effect overrides it).

5 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

When you would lose something else you will most likely gain Dying (5) instead unless your GM wants to play that game. Also, the Disad does take effect, so even if you switch to different Rings, you still get to re-roll those dice (the assigned Ring for the Disad is only a guideline, the description effect overrides it).

yeah if you leave it into the GM's hand to do what he feels like. then everything is possible.

rule wise though, would getting a scar disadvantage crit or dying condition automatically fill your endurance with fatigue be too op ? I feel like if you get a scar disadvantage you're kinda focked anyway (sorry for the bad word), so at that point, i mean, your arm fell off... wouldn't it make sense to go directly to incapacitated state ?

more than just making sense, would it be too strong, making crits too strong ? are you characters getting hit by maiming blows every games ??

I don't think you need to auto-incap a pc that suffered a maiming blow. There's plenty of examples in fiction where the hero fights on after something like that happens. Plus it gives your players a cool story to overcome loss of an arm to still win the day, so you may rob them of that opportunity. I'm harsh but still want to give them a chance at least. 😁

After rereading the somewhat vague phrasing of "a second instance of a disadvantage with a scar type" I prefer AtoMaki's interpretation and will be doing that. So no more suffering Blind and One arm and Lost leg in one fight. In 5 rounds you'll be dead. React appropriately.

6 minutes ago, Corg Ironside said:

I don't think you need to auto-incap a pc that suffered a maiming blow. There's plenty of examples in fiction where the hero fights on after something like that happens. Plus it gives your players a cool story to overcome loss of an arm to still win the day, so you may rob them of that opportunity. I'm harsh but still want to give them a chance at least. 😁

After rereading the somewhat vague phrasing of "a second instance of a disadvantage with a scar type" I prefer AtoMaki's interpretation and will be doing that. So no more suffering Blind and One arm and Lost leg in one fight. In 5 rounds you'll be dead. React appropriately.

basically saying that two "maims" in the same fight automatically give dying 5 round ? would work. that is a way to houserule the black knight issue.

i still think i can be mean enough to auto-incap a PC if they get an arm chopped off or get a dying condition put on them with a crit 11+... they can still be healed with invocations, first aid etc and fight on. Just at the brink of being incapacitated and not with possibly 15 endurance left. in "theory" maiming blows shouldn't happen a lot anyway, they are a game changer for the player! it possibly cannot happen every other games lol, otherwise the PC would be an amputee league sooner than later unless the NPC is a very hard adversary, and even then.

will do some tests.

12 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

rule wise though, would getting a scar disadvantage crit or dying condition automatically fill your endurance with fatigue be too op ? I feel like if you get a scar disadvantage you're kinda focked anyway (sorry for the bad word), so at that point, i mean, your arm fell off... wouldn't it make sense to go directly to incapacitated state ?

As per the general theme of the game, Scar = Incapacitated, or at least it should be. At our table, losing a limb is generally not a great concern because the characters are considered bad@ss enough to tank it like a pro - one of the merits of being a Magical Fantasy Samurai. Out of these two, I obviously prefer the latter.

Let me know what you think after testing. My players prefer winning a fight and then dying an honorable death to being taken out of the fight completely. But like I said, every table is different.

Just now, AtoMaki said:

As per the general theme of the game, Scar = Incapacitated, or at least it should be. At our table, losing a limb is generally not a great concern because the characters are considered bad@ss enough to tank it like a pro - one of the merits of being a Magical Fantasy Samurai. Out of these two, I obviously prefer the latter.

being incapacitated is not that harsh, just harsher. you can still first aid, invocation heal, calm breath etc.

but yes, i can understand your point of view that it is ok for a character to lose his left arm, get a dying 5 round, fight like a champ with 15+ endurance left. it is heroic. and probably for NPC getting crit like that, unless its a main villain, they should fall incapacitated.

27 minutes ago, Corg Ironside said:

Let me know what you think after testing. My players prefer winning a fight and then dying an honorable death to being taken out of the fight completely. But like I said, every table is different.

"My players prefer winning a fight and then dying an honorable death to being taken out of the fight completely"

agreed. not sure being incapacitated is the end of the fight for a party of medium to high rank samurais though, probably have a shugenja healer in there, a dude that first aid like there is no tmrw, or what not (like just use calming breath one turn to get your fatigue below your endurance)

but taking a crit 12+ dying condition, then getting the dying condition removed by a rank 1 monk with cleansing spirit and be all fresh and dandy, not even prone, the next turn ? (ok might have bleeding left and a serious wound on one ring...) is probably a bit too high fantasy for my liking.

not sure.. i'm uncertain about it really.

ok, you guys are almost convincing me!!

i would probably leave maiming not causing fatigue loss, lets go full on heroic.

but, would probably use:

Dying condition: add: when you gain the dying condition, automatically fill your endurance with fatigue and gain the incapacitated condition.

because, dying is dying. thats a crit 12+ ! or an accumulation of 2 crits on same ring.. or some other crazy event that should not make you black knight monty python that can be healed relatively easily in-scene anymore.

2 hours ago, AtoMaki said:

And, of course, if the player simply chooses to not keep Strife anyway then Bleeding will have no effect either.

I'd say not keeping any dice with strife on them is a pretty significant effect.

17 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

I'd say not keeping any dice with strife on them is a pretty significant effect.

After a certain point in character development (when you go from Ring-heavy to Skill-heavy), it becomes surprisingly tame. It is a big deal at the beginning tho, I can agree with that.

bleeding works fine... you basically need to be more careful in your actions not to "bleed". i'm ok with that.

im NOT ok with how the critical hits with bleeding are calculated, because it kind of one shot high endurance character AND because if its a lesser severity crit, and you soak it, then your armor becomes dmg because of bleeding

i tweaked it a bit.

and i feel that filling the endurance on dying players is probably fine. to put real pressure on "dying" condition instead of just having it fully healed with a rank 1 kiho or TN 4 med check.

still if the dying player wants to spend his turn doing a calming breath or whatever, he gets back on his foot (as his fatigue is strictly equal to his endurance so healing only 1 fatigue puts him out of incapacitated) he lost a turn or not even under certain circumstances (calming breath with water stance?). so its allright i suppose. will test some.

15 hours ago, Corg Ironside said:

I thought the optional rule is if they would suffer the SAME scar disadvantage then they can get dying. I may be wrong on that.

You are not.

"At the GM’s discretion, if a character would otherwise be assigned a second instance of a disadvantage with the scar type due to recurring harm, the character is struck with a mortal blow. Instead of being assigned a new scar disadvantage, the character suffers the Dying (5 rounds) condition."

But yes, every scar also comes with a free Bleeding, and yes, even Void Stance takes Fatigue from it, because Bleeding is specifically " equal to the [Strife] symbols on their kept dice " not "equal to the strife received".

6 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

You are not.

"At the GM’s discretion, if a character would otherwise be assigned a second instance of a disadvantage with the scar type due to recurring harm, the character is struck with a mortal blow. Instead of being assigned a new scar disadvantage, the character suffers the Dying (5 rounds) condition."

But yes, every scar also comes with a free Bleeding, and yes, even Void Stance takes Fatigue from it, because Bleeding is specifically " equal to the [Strife] symbols on their kept dice " not "equal to the strife received".

bleeding is an easy fix for most parties of samurais. it is an easy TN, or, a monk or a shuggie can take care of it relatively easily. especially the monk who can from rank 1 heal dying condition with one kiho.

the hardest thing to actually "heal" is fatigue me thinks. and the original post is mostly about the experience of some gamers that said that fatigue is hard to whittle down when characters start to have heavy armors, so in the end, you end up chopping stuff left and right but nobody is incapacitated, or hitting each other and there is not end in sight.

which i kind of can foresee to a certain extent, armors are really strong (also why we discussed about it in the other thread) so you use crits to bypass them.

but crits don't put people down, they just are super maiming without causing the dude to stop fighting. even dying condition... the character doesn't even fall prone/incapacitated. he can do whatever he wants and then the monk just blow a little rank 1 kiho to remove the condition.

simply just rambling about (especially the dying condition) if it shouldn't be "nastier" than what it is now. personally, i'd rather take a dying condition than a lost arm.

and if you are at the point to have a dying condition on you.. you took a 12+ crit, or got a serious crit accumulation. the fight should be kind of over at this point.

*rambling*

20 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

which i kind of can foresee to a certain extent, armors are really strong (also why we discussed about it in the other thread) so you use crits to bypass them.

but crits don't put people down, they just are super maiming without causing the dude to stop fighting. even dying condition... the character doesn't even fall prone/incapacitated. he can do whatever he wants and then the monk just blow a little rank 1 kiho to remove the condition.

If talking about NPCs - that assumes the NPC has a monk to do so.

If talking about a PC - minions spending * on their own abilities, not generic options, only cause criticals when you're incapacitated anyway, so it's less of an issue

But yes, it can be an issue for adversary opponents - because you do have to critical-bludgeon them to death if their armour is too good. The Boar is a good example of this (albeit a deliberate one), since once it's enraged it can't be rendered unconscious and whilst it can be incapacitated it can still keep attacking whilst incapacitated.

Someone expecting to go " incapacitated, out of the fight, thok! you're dead " like you do with most opponents is likely in for a nasty shock when they get a deadliness 7 tusk (+2 for enraged!) shoved somewhere tender. Boar hunting is not a safe sport....

Come to think of that, I never quite understood how you actually kill a boar... if it’s never unconscious, you don’t get the +10 to crit severity so this could go on for even longer than the black knight from Holy Grail 😛

3 hours ago, Franwax said:

Come to think of that, I never quite understood how you actually kill a boar... if it’s never unconscious, you don’t get the +10 to crit severity so this could go on for even longer than the black knight from Holy Grail 😛

Exactly so. You need to inflict repeated wounds & scars or get a natural critical severity of 12, OR you need to kill it before it becomes enraged.

Fortunately, it no longer has the Enrage ability it had in the beta (which gave it strife whenever it suffered fatigue), so provided you can hit it with enough fatigue to incapacitate it before it picks up a fifth point of strife, you're good.

3 hours ago, Franwax said:

Come to think of that, I never quite understood how you actually kill a boar... if it’s never unconscious, you don’t get the +10 to crit severity so this could go on for even longer than the black knight from Holy Grail 😛

It takes several crits, but you can step up to dead.

How many is dependent upon whether "... if a character would otherwise be assigned a second instance of a disadvantage with the scar typ e due to recurring harm, the character is struck with a mortal blow. Instead of being assigned a new scar disadvantage , the character suffers the Dying (5 rounds) condition." (underlining for emphasis added)

I see several potential interpretations of this... broad interpretations of " a second instance of a disadvantage with the scar typ e"

1. Any second or later scar
2. a second or later scar in a given ring
3. a forced repeat of a specific scar disad by a third crit in the same ring and level of injury

There are several more nuanced options in between the above, but they are further from the literal text.

• Any second or later scar
  • at all
  • in the same combat
• a second or later scar in a given ring
  • at all
  • ever, of the same level
  • in the same combat
  • in the same combat and of a given level
• a forced repeat of a specific scar disad by a third crit in the same ring and level of injury

Assuming no special attacks, and that it takes steady severity 3 crits (post reduction), once you run it to incapacitated, interpretation 1, or interpretation 2 assuming the boar doesn't change stance

1. Light wound
2. severe wound
3. permanent injury scar disad
4. dying 5

Using Interpretation 3 and it changes ring after each PI.

1. Light wound
2. severe wound
3. permanent injury scar disad
4. Light wound in second ring
5. severe wound in second ring
6. permanent injury in second ring
7. permanenent injury #2 in second ring
8. Light wound in third ring
9. severe wound in third ring
10. permanent injury in third ring
11. permanenent injury #2 in third ring
12. Light wound in fourth ring
13. severe wound in fourth ring
14. permanent injury in fourth ring
15. permanenent injury #2 in fourth ring
16. Light wound in fifth ring
17. severe wound in fifth ring
18. permanent injury in fifth ring
19. permanenent injury #2 in fifth ring
20. third permanent injury in given ring becomes dying 5

It is the boar that convinces me interpretation 3 is the wrong one.

Likewise, interpretation 1 is too easy a kill.

i don't think interpretation 1 is "too easy to kill".

thats 3 -4 crits! its a BOAR not a bear!

that you can switch ring to avoid being wounded and thus not taking dying condition is also very gimmicky..

41 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

i don't think interpretation 1 is "too easy to kill".

thats 3 -4 crits! its a BOAR not a bear!

that you can switch ring to avoid being wounded and thus not taking dying condition is also very gimmicky..

Humans, if not incapacitated, can take the same 3-4 crits to kill.

Further, if one has a better weapon - note the assumptions include only severity 3, the lowest which has build-up rules in play. If you can deliver a Severity 5 first-off, it shortens it to 3; if you can do 2 7+'s, it's dead in two crits, incapacitated or not.

For a "Rokugan on Deadly Mode," Interpretation 1 works fine... but that's deadly mode... because what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and it makes PC's super fragile, as well as all the NPCs.

Note that the boar continues to attempt to shred you for X rounds after you give it Dying X .1 boar is more than a match for 2 starting PCs. Mid-rank 1's even.