Ok, so I know this game is not D&D (and I don't want it to be).

But some rules made combat in D&D (Ffg Star Wars have the same kind of rules too) slightly more tactical, like;

-If you are using a ranged weapon in melee range you have some kind of disadvantages.

-If you want to disengage or get out of an opponent's weapon's reach you have some kind of constraints.

Could these concepts which could be applicable ? Do they make sense with the rest of l5r rules?

Like +1tn if using a ranged weapon when in melee range of an opponent? And/or some kind of penalty for leaving an opponent's reach? Fatigue/strain or extra movement?

Opinion?

Anybody playing using the tactical rules endend up with these situations?

Anybody have an easy/fast rule to help with these situations that doesn't require extra checks or make turns longer?

Nah, the combat system is supposed to be abstracted to a degree that certain specific tactical situations are handwaved away as "you do something against it unless said otherwise". You step out of melee range before firing your bow at the opponent, you do properly disengage each time, etc. This is not like D&D where literally every feet counts and characters can live or die at the mercy of two degrees difference in positioning.

Tactical combat in 5R5 mostly comes from creative uses of Techniques and Opportunity spendings. These actually provide considerably more tactical choices than D&D ever had in its entire history.

2 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

Nah, the combat system is supposed to be abstracted to a degree that certain specific tactical situations are handwaved away as "you do something against it unless said otherwise". You step out of melee range before firing your bow at the opponent, you do properly disengage each time, etc. This is not like D&D where literally every feet counts and characters can live or die at the mercy of two degrees difference in positioning.

Tactical combat in 5R5 mostly comes from creative uses of Techniques and Opportunity spendings. These actually provide considerably more tactical choices than D&D ever had in its entire history.

right. anyway, for ranged attacks you have "minimum range" so it is perfectly fine. i guess.

that only leaves disengaging from an opponent that is on your ****. that is a bit too easy unless the opponent snare you or use some other technique. i know that if using the tactical grid, if you are at range 0 from an opponent you need to spend 1 more square of movement to get out. which is kinda nice. still weird that you can be between 4 opponents with katanas and just "run away for free" unless they snare you.

10 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

still weird that you can be between 4 opponents with katanas and just "run away for free" unless they snare you.

Agreed

Well, one or more of them can use "wait" with a trigger of your movement to attack - but then they're giving up the chance to 'just stab you' as a standard strike action.

Iron Forest requires a polearm and Coiling Serpent a snaring weapon

I guess you could (temporarily) establish an area of entangling terrain with water opportunities?

I dunno. I guess it's part of the setting; block formations of spearmen aside, 'close rank formation' isn't really a thing, and these are meant to be fairly cinematic fights where both sides are able to move pretty freely. I recall raising the issue in reverse in the beta; there are no actions or techniques I can see to 'manouvre' an opponent during a fight (" I want to steadily back them up against the castle wall ")

2 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

I recall raising the issue in reverse in the beta; there are no actions or techniques I can see to 'manouvre' an opponent during a fight (" I want to steadily back them up against the castle wall ")

like some kind of "shove" (push) ?

true. that could be interesting. throw people of ledges is always epic and it is actually a bit weird nothing at all does that (no rule, no technique). good catch.

I guess it's kind of assumed that if you're facing 4-1 odds, your opponents are probably minions and therefore you should be allowed to Errol Flynn your way past them

( Hahaha! and use of chandelier optional)

how would you write a rule to push an opponent ? nothing crazy, push like 1 square or something like that maybe ?

a bit like snaring ? opportunity as much as vigilance to push 1 square ? with any melee or unarmed attack ? or just unarmed ?

2 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

how would you write a rule to push an opponent ? nothing crazy, push like 1 square or something like that maybe ?

a bit like snaring ? opportunity as much as vigilance to push 1 square ? with any melee or unarmed attack ? or just unarmed ?

I didn't even necessarily mean physically throw so much as manoeuvre with the flow of the fight; attacking to drive, retreating to lead.

I'm not sure if it should be an action or an opportunity. I'd rather it not be a quality or technique because it's such a basic ability, everyone should be able to do it (not necessarily 'well' but they should be able to try)

• Should definitely be martial arts [melee] or martial arts [unarmed] (the original query - found it - came up relating to Sumai wrestling matches, where the aim is to throw the opponent out of the ring, which of course you can't do), not martial arts [ranged]
• Not everyone necessarily uses a grid, so making it move them 1 range band instead makes sense. Making it melee only stops problems with the faintly ridiculous amounts of ground the longer shooting range bands cover.
• It should avoid any issue of " I advance towards katana range" "I stab you with my spear, and push you back again and keep doing so ad infinitum ", such that a swordsman can never get into melee range (Iron Forest already does that, but there's a check to resist and it's a specific technique not everyone has)
• Making it a specific action to manoeuvre your opponent (such that you're then not simultaneously attacking them) makes sense because then you're giving up your turn's action to achieve the effect, so it's not affecting the balance of the fight unless moving them matters more than killing them (because fighting in a ring or on a ledge, protecting a door or person, that sort of thing).
• If it requires a check, then it can't be 'thrown in' for free with water stance (water dancers already get to move themselves extra for free, they don't need to be able to move their enemy for free!).
• Don't have a check to resist because adding dice rolls for no reason will slow the game down
• There needs to be an opponent-specific element to the task, though - so maybe make the TN your opponent's focus (vigilance seems a bit low for an action TN rather than just an opportunity spend).

19 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

like some kind of "shove" (push) ?

true. that could be interesting. throw people of ledges is always epic and it is actually a bit weird nothing at all does that (no rule, no technique). good catch.

More significant (narratively) about the fact that you can 'ignore' an opponent and 'just walk past them' is the idea that a Yojimbo has trouble stopping someone getting at their boss. The Loyal Bushi NPC has Sworn Protector , which does the job nicely, but aside from Lord Shiba's Valour (Phoenix exclusive, heritage tables aside), the PCs don't really have any such option. Which is an issue, since "protect Lord/Lady XYZ" is a pretty common element of a scenario....

really like how technical you are. the constraint you put for the rules are very logical. good job and will consider all those!!

there is an advantage like "balance" or whatever that gives you immunity from being push off ledges etc, but basically no action to "shove" which is indeed weird. so would definitely need to have something to do that.

-i agree it should be instead of doing a strike, it should probably be a special "attack action" instead of opportunity.

-if it only push(reposition) 1 range band, probably vigilance is a high enough of a TN. most people have 3 unless you are really low rank.

-agree should try to avoid the opponent rolling a check. hence why vigilance becomes a good TN (or anything that gives someone a scaling defense against it and not static (one of the reason I hate Coiling Serpent is because its a static TN)

-if it is an attack action with a check, i don't see why it couldn't be used with water stance. you push them a bit, you move a bit. nothing crazy. unless i'm missing something... but you could make the "shove" action an attack/maneuvre action.

Attack and Movement action makes sense. As for the TN, since it has the attack tag, keep in mind that targets in Air stance add 1 to the TN. Why not, but it feels like resistance to being moved around should be increased in the Earth stance, rather than Air (the mountain does not move, as Takeda Shingen said).

Now, seeing you give up the chance to inflict damage, I do not see why it should be harder than a regular Strike action, so I would have no problem with a fixed TN of 2, or maybe “TN 2 (Earth 3, Air 1)” (with characters who can benefit from stance bonuses bringing back the TN to the regular 2 in Air stance)

41 minutes ago, Franwax said:

Attack and Movement action makes sense. As for the TN, since it has the attack tag, keep in mind that targets in Air stance add 1 to the TN. Why not, but it feels like resistance to being moved around should be increased in the Earth stance, rather than Air (the mountain does not move, as Takeda Shingen said).

Now, seeing you give up the chance to inflict damage, I do not see why it should be harder than a regular Strike action, so I would have no problem with a fixed TN of 2, or maybe “TN 2 (Earth 3, Air 1)” (with characters who can benefit from stance bonuses bringing back the TN to the regular 2 in Air stance)

you cannot really have TN2 (earth 3, air 1) because that would be the attacker's check (or a defender's resist check) but not a TN.

since we didn't really want the target to make a check.. we were looking for a "defense" for the target, but the only option is vigilance.

and one reason why i hate the design of Coiling Serpent Strike, is that the target doesn't have any defense against it no matter how good he is. (compared to Spinning Blade that targets vigilance, or other techniques that have a Resist check).

i know vigilance is air/water... but it is hard to find a TN that is scaleable and takes the target's skill into consideration without giving the target a check (and that isn't vigilance, and that makes sense with the rules).

Same thing for attacks in general: no matter how good the target is, it’s always TN 2 (with mods from Air stance if applicable). I am not making the target roll a resist check either. Just one roll for the attacker. Just like with regular strikes, the ways for the target to defend are: be in a specific Stance or take the Guard action.

If we use Vigilance, I don’t see why we shouldn’t use it for Strikes as well. Maybe this could work as a houserule mind you, but I’m trying to change as little a possible here

15 hours ago, Franwax said:

Same thing for attacks in general: no matter how good the target is, it’s always TN 2 (with mods from Air stance if applicable). I am not making the target roll a resist check either. Just one roll for the attacker. Just like with regular strikes, the ways for the target to defend are: be in a specific Stance or take the Guard action.

If we use Vigilance, I don’t see why we shouldn’t use it for Strikes as well. Maybe this could work as a houserule mind you, but I’m trying to change as little a possible here

ok so your option TN between brackets are depending on the target's stance and not depending on the ring used for the check. that was confusingly written.

i get it now though.

changing it as little as possible would be keeping it a "competitive check" as per the core rules. both players role fitness against a static TN 1, the player with most bonus successes win; the character who wins the contest can move the other character 1 range band or give him the prone condition. If it is a tie, nothing happens.

obviously, since the rules are sometimes shaky, nothing tells you which character rolls first in a competitive check. so who have the last say in how many dice they decide to keep ? (ie: if you know your opponent only have 2 successes, why would you keep more than what you need to win, if all other successes have strife?). Thinking about it... I would need to define a "who rolls first" in competitive checks...

oh l5r... the more I dig,..

anyway. would probably need to be a resisted check, or a competitive check (though the book mentions that competitive check are used when neither player is clearly resisting the other).

so then... a fitness check, resisted by fitness it is. and how far should it move the other player ? who knows. who knows.

ok, my head is spinning.

lets make it easy;

---

SHOVE (new Skirmish Action): attack/movement action:

make an unarmed(melee) TN2 check, if you succeed, move the target one range band in any horizontal direction you choose (or 1 square, even diagonal, on tactical grid). The space in which the target is being moved to must be safe and not worst off mechanically that the space he is currently occupying.

If you want to move the target to a dangerous location (ledge, spikes, dangerous terrain etc) the target can do a resist check with fitness TN1 + your bonus successes.

opp+: spend as many opp as the target's vigilance to make him suffer the prone condition

---

there you go.. sure, air is harder to move... slippery bugger. But you can't prone Earth..

thats like simple. makes it so you cannot push somebody using a polearm or weapon (which, even if doable is kind of weird. lets keep it to unarmed for reach purpose etc) so its basically pushing/pulling with hand or sparta kick or trip...or shoulder bash... or whatever you can imagine.

(sorry, that was me thinking while writing)

added this rule too:

competitive check: the order for making competitive checks: character with the highest honor resolve their checks first (same as initiative rule).

oh, and another thing I realised, playing this game with the "tactical grid" optional rule is totally busted and different mathematically than using range bands.

i strongly recommend to use range bands.

1 hour ago, Avatar111 said:

ok so your option TN between brackets are depending  on the target's stance and not depending on the ring used for the check. that was confusing  ly written  .  

Yes sorry.. that’s what I meant and I realize this was not standard notation. Sorry for being unclear.

I don't think you need to add anything here... There are three actions (Guard, Maneuver, and Unique Action) already in existence that probably cover your needs.

If you're trying to protect someone, use Guard. That can simply be thought of as interposing yourself. It's abstract, but it works. If they overcome your addition to the TN to hit your ally, then obviously they got past you. If you're guarding someone and have an obvious advantage (like a bottle-neck), that could either be represented with bonus successes or with an GM decision that the attack cannot be made so long as you're holding that position.

Maneuver sounds like it only is for physically going from point a to point b at first glance, but I think you could easily extrapolate. Getting past people sounds like a Fitness test.

If you're trying to move someone else, I really don't think any one rule is going to cover that and the "Unique Action" is best here. Sometimes you'll be shoving them physically. Sometimes you'll be tricking them to move. Sometimes you'll be threatening with a weapon to force them to react. A case could be made for glaring at someone as you intimidate them into moving, certainly skilled samurai facing down a group of ashigaru have done this in movies... These could be Earth (unarmed), Air (Fitness), Fire or Air (Melee), Fire (Command), and so on.

Combats are not static typically, and actually games like D&D frustrate me to a degree with attacks of opportunity. It's a simple rule to allow board control, but in reality, trying to pay attention to more than one fighter is a challenge all its own. The thought that one person "controls" a 15' swath of anything is hard to imagine. If you're engaged, you don't get to stop someone else from slipping by. Also, stepping away from a fight is the easiest thing in the world and making that challenging doesn't make sense either. Now, trying to get past one person who wants to stop you is actually not that easy, especially if they're armed. So there's a lot to take into account.

Even though it's tempting to add more to this, I'd rather leave it alone and just talk through what players are doing. Getting all the tests right is pretty hard as is.

8 hours ago, player387247 said:

I don't think you need to add anything here... There are three actions (Guard, Maneuver, and Unique Action) already in existence that probably cover your needs.

If you're trying to protect someone, use Guard. That can simply be thought of as interposing yourself. It's abstract, but it works. If they overcome your addition to the TN to hit your ally, then obviously they got past you. If you're guarding someone and have an obvious advantage (like a bottle-neck), that could either be represented with bonus successes or with an GM decision that the attack cannot be made so long as you're holding that position.

Maneuver sounds like it only is for physically going from point a to point b at first glance, but I think you could easily extrapolate. Getting past people sounds like a Fitness test.

If you're trying to move someone else, I really don't think any one rule is going to cover that and the "Unique Action" is best here. Sometimes you'll be shoving them physically. Sometimes you'll be tricking them to move. Sometimes you'll be threatening with a weapon to force them to react. A case could be made for glaring at someone as you intimidate them into moving, certainly skilled samurai facing down a group of ashigaru have done this in movies... These could be Earth (unarmed), Air (Fitness), Fire or Air (Melee), Fire (Command), and so on.

Combats are not static typically, and actually games like D&D frustrate me to a degree with attacks of opportunity. It's a simple rule to allow board control, but in reality, trying to pay attention to more than one fighter is a challenge all its own. The thought that one person "controls" a 15' swath of anything is hard to imagine. If you're engaged, you don't get to stop someone else from slipping by. Also, stepping away from a fight is the easiest thing in the world and making that challenging doesn't make sense either. Now, trying to get past one person who wants to stop you is actually not that easy, especially if they're armed. So there's a lot to take into account.

Even though it's tempting to add more to this, I'd rather leave it alone and just talk through what players are doing. Getting all the tests right is pretty hard as is.

i liked @Magnus Grendel idea of an ability to add a clear way to reposition another person. but yeah, maybe i should just roll with the punches on this one and call a fitness competitive check and adjust accordingly. you are right.

i usually prefer when things are a bit clearer, but maybe i should not with this game... it is how it is made. it is so messy and illogical that basically you do what you want, how you want. this is the best answer most of the time; interpret it how you feel like.

last game a PC wanted to climb. took us 5 minutes to come up with what is the right way to roll that check. the only thing in the book that even mentions climbing that we could find is spending air opportunity on a martial check on p.328... so, to climb, you need to be in air and get opportunities on a air movement action check? i guess? how weird is that rule? why is it not a simple TN like other fitness rolls? nope. that would be too clear, they had to put the opportunity spending with a one range band per opportunity just to make it unclear if air is the only way to climb or not.

another case is the advantage "keen balance" which is earth. but in fitness is says keeping one balance is air. where is the logic here ?? which one would you roll ? i'll tell you: whatever you feel like. that is the answer. and i just have to agree with that, that everything is flexible and usable how you feel like.

oh and the opportunity in earth martial, reduce a critical severity by 1 per opp spent this way. can you tell me how often that would happen if while being in earth stance other people cannot spend opportunities to do critical strikes on you? oh, yeah, it happens if i was in earth stance and fell down a pit so i take fall damage or the enemy have heart piercing strike? so they uses one of the few examples on how to spend opportunity with martial earth check for "edgecase" stuff ?

i drop the towel really. this is beyond my understanding.

air opportunity to climb would be if you want to climb as well as doing something else - opportunity is always something positive not directly part of success or failure (which is why you never ask for a check 'just' to get opportunities).

if youre moving its a maneuver action. if youre moving several range bands through terrain which takes extra effort to cross (in an extreme case climbing it) then its entangling terrain or a more severe equivalent thereof.

i agree that "trapping" or "blocking" should only really apply if youve got a bottleneck or people have to come directly past you -backing away from an opponent is easy unless youre backing towards another opponent at the same time.

looking through the book, guard + fire opportunity is good for defending a friend: you increase the TN to hit them instead of you, and increase the TN to hit you at the same time.

7 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

air opportunity to climb would be if you want to climb as well as doing something else - opportunity is always something positive not directly part of success or failure (which is why you never ask for a check 'just' to get opportunities).

if youre moving its a maneuver action. if youre moving several range bands through terrain which takes extra effort to cross (in an extreme case climbing it) then its entangling terrain or a more severe equivalent thereof.

i agree that "trapping" or "blocking" should only really apply if youve got a bottleneck or people have to come directly past you -backing away from an opponent is easy unless youre backing towards another opponent at the same time.

looking through the book, guard + fire opportunity is good for defending a friend: you increase the TN to hit them instead of you, and increase the TN to hit you at the same time.

The air oppoetunity to move vertical surfaces is almost unusable unless you use the maneuvre action, as it needs to be an "movement action check". Not sure any air techniques would even be able to benefit from that (and if there are, its only very few).

So, to climb in a skirmish you would need to use a maneuvre action anyway. What is then the benefit of air opportunities considering successes are easier to get than opportunities and you could simply do a maneuvre fitness check in fire stance to climb with successes alone (even if TN is a bit higher).

Hah! I wasn't trying to be a killjoy, sorry. I was actually more advocating for open rules, not no rules. I hate the idea that players can just make up whatever they want so it applies to their best rings and best skills. That's unreasonable. I do like that I can combine things based on their description of what they're trying to do though. I think the challenge will be keeping the players invested in taking actions that make sense for the scene, not ones that make sense because that's where their characters are Rock Stars.

I think the answer is to adjust the TN based on what the situation is. Moving someone shouldn't always be a TN 2 or whatever. Glaring a group of yari armed ashigaru out of the way shouldn't be a gimme for the Fiery Command guy. Make it a TN 5 if they have no reason to be intimidated and their commanding samurai is standing there telling them to hold their ground.

If you're taking five minutes to decide on a roll, maybe you just make an agreement with your players that you're going to make some fast calls, but things might change next game after you've had some time to think about it. You can always discuss them after the game... This is certainly my intention. I have no desire to be looking at rules all game, most games that I run I won't even crack a book.

This game has a higher learning curve than I was led to believe, but I'm enjoying figuring it out!

On 12/1/2018 at 4:52 AM, Avatar111 said:

last game a PC wanted to climb. took us 5 minutes to come up with what is the right way to roll that check. the only thing in the book that even mentions climbing that we could find is spending air opportunity on a martial check on p.328... so, to climb, you need to be in air and get opportunities on a air movement action check? i guess? how weird is that rule? why is it not a simple TN like other fitness rolls? nope. that would be too clear, they had to put the opportunity spending with a one range band per opportunity just to make it unclear if air is the only way to climb or not.

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.

Yep, that's the climb.

To climb, you need 1 <opp> on your fitness roll, to use the free move vertically. You need 2 <s> & 1 <opp> for each additional vertical band.

Really quite hard to go fast, but not hard at all for going up slow.

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 6:22 AM, player387247 said:

was actually more advocating for open rules, not no rules. I hate the idea that players can just make up whatever they want so it applies to their best rings and best skills. That's unreasonable. I do like that I can combine things based on their description of what they're trying to do though.  I think the challenge will be keeping the players invested in taking actions that make sense for the scene, not ones that make sense because that's where their characters are Rock Stars.

I think the answer is to adjust the TN based on what the situation is. Moving someone shouldn't always be a TN 2 or whatever. Glaring a group of yari armed ashigaru out of the way shouldn't be a gimme for the Fiery Command guy. Make it a TN 5 if they have no reason to be intimidated and their commanding samurai is standing there telling them to hold their ground.

This.

• The Player narrates what they want to attempt
• The GM and the Player agree what approach it is, with the GM getting the last call
• The GM sets the TN - varying according to both the situation and the approach

So, yes, "moving something" will vary on TN. TN will vary wildly depending on the approach you take, and picking a ridiculous approach in order to use your 'best ring' is exactly where a suitably ludicrous TN should be applied. If they can come up with a consistant explanation of how their plan should work, you should let them use the ring they want to, no matter how Wile-E-Coyote convoluted it is, but that's where the TN comes into play.

For example, if their plan is blatantly a given approach (say "scrutinise" a thing that they are already aware of and trying to discern the detailed qualities of), then adding the word "passionately" and complaining when you won't let them use their (higher) fire ring is just trying to game the system.

But theoretically, there is a TN value for a theology check to have the original clan thunders spontaneously manifest en masse and beat the snot out of your opponent. You're really not going to pass it , but if the player insists that's their plan, it's not your place to deny them the right to roll dice.

1 hour ago, AK_Aramis said:

Yep, that's the climb.

To climb, you need 1 <opp> on your fitness roll, to use the free move vertically. You need 2 <s> & 1 <opp> for each additional vertical band.

Really quite hard to go fast, but not hard at all for going up slow.

I see it that if you're doing a movement action to move, you can use an opportunity to go up a vertical surface - which probably represents a shortcut compared to going through the 'regular' terrain approach (for example, if the cliff is one you could climb during a conflict scene, there's probably a scree slope that would be several range bands of movement to reach and then move back and forth to climb, or one vertical band "straight up" the cliff)

2 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

This.

• The Player narrates what they want to attempt
• The GM and the Player agree what approach it is, with the GM getting the last call
• The GM sets the TN - varying according to both the situation and the approach

So, yes, "moving something" will vary on TN. TN will vary wildly depending on the approach you take, and picking a ridiculous approach in order to use your 'best ring' is exactly where a suitably ludicrous TN should be applied. If they can come up with a consistant explanation of how their plan should work, you should let them use the ring they want to, no matter how Wile-E-Coyote convoluted it is, but that's where the TN comes into play.

For example, if their plan is blatantly a given approach (say "scrutinise" a thing that they are already aware of and trying to discern the detailed qualities of), then adding the word "passionately" and complaining when you won't let them use their (higher) fire ring is just trying to game the system.

But theoretically, there is a TN value for a theology check to have the original clan thunders spontaneously manifest en masse and beat the snot out of your opponent. You're really not going to pass it , but if the player insists that's their plan, it's not your place to deny them the right to roll dice.

I see it that if you're doing a movement action to move, you can use an opportunity to go up a vertical surface - which probably represents a shortcut compared to going through the 'regular' terrain approach (for example, if the cliff is one you could climb during a conflict scene, there's probably a scree slope that would be several range bands of movement to reach and then move back and forth to climb, or one vertical band "straight up" the cliff)

If the "only" way ahead is to climb, during a skirmish, and there is an archer ahead you need to reach.

Would you be strict enough to say yhe only way to climb is to use air opportunities? Because "by the rules" thats what it is. Otherwise i'll take an higher tn to my move check with my best ring most of the time.

On another subject, you cannot jump and attack in this game since jumping needs to be the maneuvre action. Not saying it is good or bad, just a bit limiting, heroically speaking.