hello fellow L5R players,

here is yet another mechanical, maniacal, question from yours truly.

minimum range on weapons: as per the rules, you cannot use a weapon on a target that is closer to you than the minimum range of the weapon, in example, you cannot shoot an arrow on a target at range 1 from you with a Yumi.

here is the situation, if you have 4 angry monks, surrounding you at range 0 or 1. can you still attack with your Yumi a target that is at range 3 (a random monk that wasn't so angry and decided to stay further away).

that also applies to melee weapons! if you have a polearm of strict range 2, and you have again, those 4 angry monks within range 0 or 1 of yourself. can you attack a target at range 2 ?

let me know your thoughts!

p 252: "To affect another character with an Attack action, a character must generally have line of sight and an unobstructed path to that target."

So, up to the GM if four angry monks surrounding you counts as "obstructing your path" to a different target. But my initial reaction would be 'probably'.

oof! you found that in the editing mess! good job. i am impressed, honestly, and i like the result; "hostile enemies" would count as "obstructing" so you cannot shoot thru them or run thru them.

meaning that if an angry monk is in front of you at range 1 you could turn around and shoot an arrow at an angry monk that was behind you at range 3 but you could not shoot an arrow "thru" an angry monk to reach another of those pesky angry monk.

for range 0, i'm guessing it would normally count as obstructing all your sides. the angry monk would basically be all over you (if the angry monk would be 1 silhouette smaller than you, it would probably not obstruct you).

well done.

edit: i'm guessing that friendlies would also obstruct you then. interpretation is up to the GM, as is often the case in this game. I just like to make those interpretation clear so the game can run smoothly. so would probably go with "raw"; anything (even friendlies) can be obstructing.

and then you have, but do you still obstruct someone if you are prone ? again, GM's call...

I'm frankly not sure where I'd draw the line, as if you make "obstructing" too easy then the "Guard" action loses some of it's value. Rendering your charge 'unable to be attacked' is in general much better than giving them +1 TN...though I suppose the argument could be made that 'guard' is helpful against many attackers regardless of where they are positioned in relation to you and your charge, while relying on being an obstruction would only prevent enemy attacks "in line" with you and your charge.

[shrug] like I said, I"m not sure where I'd draw the line. But your example of four angry monks is not IMO much of a hard call.

if it was one opponent, maybe not, but a mob of 4 is probably pushing it. also, Is the "change the maximum or minimum range" for * still a thing - because that still lets you point blank legolas one of the monks.