1) when you activate an Element technique that requires an Element roll, you Need to Be in that element stance, right?

2) when you activate an Element technique that doesn't require an Element roll, you don't Need to Be in that element stance, right? (Like "Courtier's resolve" void shuji 1)

1) Yes absolutely, and by extension all techniques that let you spend opportunities of a certain element - those also require that you are in that element’s stance, even if they are not necessarily element themed (e.g. Ninjutsu with Air)

2) Oh that one's tricky... Courtier’s Resolve is actually the only Element-sorted technique that does not require a roll or give an element based opportunity option, so this case is quite unique. Shuji are sorted by element and I would tend to think that you need to be in that same stance to use them. Kata by contrast, are sorted between general, melee and ranged. The vast majority are keyed to an element but some are not (coiling serpent, crescent moon, warrior’s resolve and tactical assessment). The other element-sorted techs besides Shuji are Kiho and Invocations and they all rely on a roll of their element.

So courtier’s resolve is in a weird place... now if the question is whether I would allow it in another stance, then probably yes. I haven’t played enough with it to see how disruptive that would be, but since this spends your entire action to recover Strife and is once per scene, I can’t really see a huge problem. Except maybe with Water stance, if you chose to do that as your extra free action..?

Curious to see what others have to say about that one too!

Taking a better look, since Courtier’s Resolve (Void Shuji 1) is almost identical to Warrior’s Resolve (Kata 1), only switch strife for fatigue and glory for honor, I would say Courtier’s Resolve too can be used in any stance.

Well that would be the case if Kata were ordered by Ring, but they pointedly aren't (Kata have "form" classification, p. 172); Shuji, however, are like Kiho and Invocations: they have "Elemental" classification and are the only three technique categories like that. But then again, Courtier's Resolve is also the only elemental classification technique without an skill check, so it's hard to compare it to anything else.

This said, it's no big deal to make it work in another stance.

Edit: still, thematically, it would be a stretch to imagine an action used "to clear and organize one’s mind" while in the aggressive Fire stance

41 minutes ago, Franwax said:

Well that would be the case if Kata were ordered by Ring, but they pointedly aren't (Kata have "form" classification, p. 172); Shuji, however, are like Kiho and Invocations: they have "Elemental" classification and are the only three technique categories like that. But then again, Courtier's Resolve is also the only elemental classification technique without an skill check, so it's hard to compare it to anything else.

This said, it's no big deal to make it work in another stance.

Edit: still, thematically, it would be a stretch to imagine an action used "to clear and organize one’s mind" while in the aggressive Fire stance

if you use Fire Stance do to Courtier's Resolve... don't know what you are gaining exactly. I'd rather use Water, Earth, Air for their respective bonuses.

but anyway, If there is no specific check or opportunity requirement, I don't request the need for the stance.

8 hours ago, Franwax said:

Well that would be the case if Kata were ordered by Ring, but they pointedly aren't (Kata have "form" classification, p. 172); Shuji, however, are like Kiho and Invocations: they have "Elemental" classification and are the only three technique categories like that. But then again, Courtier's Resolve is also the only elemental classification technique without an skill check, so it's hard to compare it to anything else.

This said, it's no big deal to make it work in another stance.

Edit: still, thematically, it would be a stretch to imagine an action used "to clear and organize one’s mind" while in the aggressive Fire stance

It's no big deal, but I prefer requiring the Void stance - it fits the description of the technique while some other stances are just weird to apply here, and it feels odd to have one shuji that doesn't require a specific stance while all the others do.

2 hours ago, nameless ronin said:

It's no big deal, but I prefer requiring the Void stance - it fits the description of the technique while some other stances are just weird to apply here, and it feels odd to have one shuji that doesn't require a specific stance while all the others do.

exactly, you do you, there is no right or wrong answer because the rules are unassuming like in most cases. just be ready if your players are a bit gamey to often get bogged down because of the unclear situations in the rules (or you might get lucky and find an answer to your question in a sidebars in another chapter).

2 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

exactly, you do you, there is no right or wrong answer because the rules are unassuming like in most cases. just be ready if your players are a bit gamey to often get bogged down because of the unclear situations in the rules (or you might get lucky and find an answer to your question in a sidebars in another chapter).

I always listen to my players' arguments, but the decision is always the GM's. I suggest not looking for answers for too long during sessions: do a quick check in case the answer's easy to find, if not make a temporary ruling and keep the game moving.

10 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

If you  use Fire Stance do to Courtier's Resolve... d  on't know what you are gaining exactly. I'd rather use W  ate  r, Earth, Air for their respective bonuses.  

Oh absolutely, it’s not very useful... just noted that it was thematically dodgy. Earth would be much easier to justify, fluff wise. You could however want to use Courtier’s Resolve in Fire Stance in a Duel if you are close to becoming Compromised and want to use those bonus successes to resist an effect or crit your opponent may drop on you (say with Heartpiercing Strike). But in general, yeah Water for the extra action, Air for the extra TN or Earth to avoid bad surprises/conditions while you reduce your Strife are usually better options.

Void stance does not give you anything, interestingly...

Just now, nameless ronin said:

I always listen to my players' arguments, but the decision is always the GM's. I suggest not looking for answers for too long during sessions: do a quick check in case the answer's easy to find, if not make a temporary ruling and keep the game moving.

definitely. i was just being a complaining and entitled customer that is nonsensically disappointed in the writing and editing of the L5R corebook.

that's what forums are for right ? also, I love "refining" and "designing" games so I discuss here and write notes in my corebook and do some houserules etc. all for fun, I wouldn't have 800+ posts in a little over a month "just to complain". i am not THAT crazy.

9 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

definitely. i was just being a complaining and entitled customer that is nonsensically disappointed in the writing and editing of the L5R corebook.

I'm fairly sure development finalization was rushed. Management decided that after X amount of man hours (and thus budget) it had to be good enough and the project was wrapped up. Simple business decision.

2 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

exactly, you do you, there is no right or wrong answer because the rules are unassuming like in most cases. just be ready if your players are a bit gamey to often get bogged down because of the unclear situations in the rules (or you might get lucky and find an answer to your question in a sidebars in another chapter).

BULL.

There is usually a right answer, provided one isn't blinded by prior experience with other games - it's just not always obvious. The rules are FAR more clear than your foggy view of them. But only if you grasp the two most important rules of L5R 5.

The most important rule is on page 20, 1st paragraph. The only thing unclear about that is that the design is "roll only when really needed for drama."

The second most is on page 22: the subsection, "When to Make a Check"...

Applying the hermeneutic therein removes a LOT of the silly nitpicks you seem to be plagued with in play, based upon your various posts.

Simply put... unless all of the following are true, the GM should just decide the outcome and move on:

• the PC can fail the action
• the PC can succeed the action
• failing the action has interesting consequences
• succeeding the action has interesting consequences

Likewise, in conflicts, the GM has decided the situation is most interestingly resolved as a conflict. If the GM doesn't see it as interesting, don't invoke the conflict rules. This isn't D&D, where the conflict is the most interesting thing going in the setting. This is character centric drama.

****, my last sunday session, two weeks ago, covered all of 4 hours of character time plus a night's sleep. (Last week's was off due to the Anchorage Quake.) Most of it simple in-character narration, peppered with a few rolls to see if the character could pull off the straight-face, and a few more for interpreting/intuiting the meaning of NPC reactions. No conflict resolution needed.

• No roll needed for sneaking into the Emerald Champion's tower - Failure was uninteresting.
• no roll needed for making the paper airplanes.
• A roll needed to intimidate the guard... The Togashi failed that one... but it lead interesting places. Like ticking off the instructor.
• Another few rolls for making things - one by the Kaiu, one by the Asahina.
• a commune ritual - to get a ghost present so they could ask it questions.

This isn't a simulation game, where there's a rule for each niggling thing.

There's a process provided for when the answer is called forth from the dice. It's open ended. It's rather nicely flexible. Like many games with structured action resolution systems, (including MegaTraveller, 2300AD, FFG Star Wars, d6 Star Wars, 2d20 system (Star Trek Adventures, Conan, Mutant Chronicles), the system is a framework to build upon, not a menu to pick from.

2 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

BULL.

There is usually a right answer, provided one isn't blinded by prior experience with other games - it's just not always obvious. The rules are FAR more clear than your foggy view of them. But only if you grasp the two most important rules of L5R 5.

The most important rule is on page 20, 1st paragraph. The only thing unclear about that is that the design is "roll only when really needed for drama."

The second most is on page 22: the subsection, "When to Make a Check"...

Applying the hermeneutic therein removes a LOT of the silly nitpicks you seem to be plagued with in play, based upon your various posts.

Simply put... unless all of the following are true, the GM should just decide the outcome and move on:

• the PC can fail the action
• the PC can succeed the action
• failing the action has interesting consequences
• succeeding the action has interesting consequences

Likewise, in conflicts, the GM has decided the situation is most interestingly resolved as a conflict. If the GM doesn't see it as interesting, don't invoke the conflict rules. This isn't D&D, where the conflict is the most interesting thing going in the setting. This is character centric drama.

****, my last sunday session, two weeks ago, covered all of 4 hours of character time plus a night's sleep. (Last week's was off due to the Anchorage Quake.) Most of it simple in-character narration, peppered with a few rolls to see if the character could pull off the straight-face, and a few more for interpreting/intuiting the meaning of NPC reactions. No conflict resolution needed.

• No roll needed for sneaking into the Emerald Champion's tower - Failure was uninteresting.
• no roll needed for making the paper airplanes.
• A roll needed to intimidate the guard... The Togashi failed that one... but it lead interesting places. Like ticking off the instructor.
• Another few rolls for making things - one by the Kaiu, one by the Asahina.
• a commune ritual - to get a ghost present so they could ask it questions.

This isn't a simulation game, where there's a rule for each niggling thing.

There's a process provided for when the answer is called forth from the dice. It's open ended. It's rather nicely flexible. Like many games with structured action resolution systems, (including MegaTraveller, 2300AD, FFG Star Wars, d6 Star Wars, 2d20 system (Star Trek Adventures, Conan, Mutant Chronicles), the system is a framework to build upon, not a menu to pick from.

and do you need to be in Void stance to use courtier's resolve shuji ?

lol

32 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

The most important rule is on page 20, 1st paragraph.

The most important rule says it's ok not to adhere to the actual rules. Now, that's a very good rule - but it doesn't exactly help clarify what the actual rules are, does it? I do love the "certain degree of technical precision" clause in that paragraph, to be honest, especially since most clarifications about rules queries I've seen seem to come down to "do what you want, it's all good".

Ultimately:

21 hours ago, LukeZZ said:

when you activate an Element technique that requires an Element roll, you Need to Be in that element stance, right?

Yes. You only make a Martial Arts (Melee) Earth check in Earth Stance, because in a conflict stance you can only perform an action using the ring whose stance you are currently in (Page 251)

21 hours ago, LukeZZ said:

2) when you activate an Element technique that doesn't require an Element roll, you don't Need to Be in that element stance, right? (Like "Courtier's resolve" void shuji 1)

No. The fact that it's called a void shuji matters for access to it on school curriculum (surprised "ranged combat kata" isn't namechecked by the Kaito curriculum, for example), but the techniques rules are entirely self contained within its entry. It does not require you to perform a check and does not require you to be in a specific stance, hence, like Soaring Slice, is useable from any stance.

16 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

if you use Fire Stance do to Courtier's Resolve... don't know what you are gaining exactly. I'd rather use Water, Earth, Air for their respective bonuses.

I agree water, earth or air would all make more sense, but you might be locked to the stance for some reason.

One that springs to mind is if you expect to be hit in an opponent's turn with an ability whose 'resist check' has a detectably lower TN in fire stance.

I would certainly rule that you need to be in Void Stance to use Void Shuji regardless of whether or not the technique in question requires a roll. First of all Courtier's Resolve is the only technique that has a Ring tied to it yet doesn't require a check, so to say that you don't need to be in Void Stance is to say that Courtier's Resolve is a special exception. Secondly, while the RAW might not explicitly state that you need to be in a like-Ring stance to use a technique which doesn't require a check the fact that every single other technique in the book tied to a Ring requires a check makes it clear to me that the RAI are on the side of being in a particular stance.

In any event, if you're in the middle of a conflict I don't see why you wouldn't want to be Void stance anyway. Presuming you're close to being compromised (which is likely if you're using Courtier's Resolve to begin with) you don't want to accumulate more Strife between turns via making rolls to resist effects (opposed rolls, Fitness checks to reduce the severity of crits, etc).

Yeah, I'm not of that argument.

Warrior's Resolve is identical to Courtier's Resolve in formatting in activation. The "void" aspect of Courtier's Resolve is spending a Void Point.

If Courtier's Resolve required you to be in Void Stance, it would say so. The section on Use does not specify anything about being in a stance other than the implication of making a check. Do what the rules tell you to do, don't do what it doesn't tell you to do.

Has anybody actually used the ability? I would be inclined to make it work in any stance, since it doesn't actually require a roll, unless this makes the ability overpowered. Which it seems to me it might be, as I find strain to be much more impactful.. or impactful more often anyway, than fatigue.

doesn't make it overpowered at all. it cost a void point. works the same way as warrior's resolve. doesn't require void stance and it is not "op".

It's (obviously) dependent on your glory rank, but (if you have a decent glory) it's useful as a super-duper calming breath in a duel in Water Stance. Burning a void point is not something to do lightly (since it's rare you've got too many and many players will have one or at most two), but where Calming Breath only gets rid of one strife (okay as a free action but not something you'd use if it wasn't), Courtier's Resolve can realistically burn off 4-5 strife even for a pretty much 'stock' character; enough to make a full turn's difference in when you become compromised and offer a chance for a finishing blow.

It's good, but not earth-shattering.

Agreed. This said, in comparison to the Warrior version, I imagine it will bring slightly more bang for your bucks. Let’s see:

1. Remove Strife : very useful in intrigues (where unmasking might make you concede a precious point); super life-saving useful in duels (avoid finishing blow); somewhat useful in skirmishes, unless you’re cool with going berserk (but otherwise, being stuck with Compromised just when you try to resist a critical hit sucks).

2. Removing Fatigue : super useful in skirmishes (it’s pretty much the whole point) and in duels (to some extent... might not be that big of a deal for first strike); not even remotely a factor in intrigues 😛

Add to that the fact that, while you would expect Glory to steadily climb with hours of play (unless the party turns Kolat or Bloodspeaker or something), Honor is really dependent on your character archetype. On the other hand if you rely on low Honor to win initiative ties and kill your enemy first, you won’t need to recover Fatigue (as the Honor’s Lesson Dojo moto goes : “Strike first, strike last” - funny name for the Bayushi main dojo by the way)

2 hours ago, Franwax said:

funny name for the Bayushi main dojo by the way

Depends very much on what the Lesson was .

I am late to this conversation, but I had the same question, and Google brought me to this thread (so sorry about the necro). After reading through the thread, and then the stance rules again, they do not preclude activating techniques in other stances- only rolls using elements of the stance you are not in. This is why most techniques are prevented from being activated by different stances; it's a cascade effect of the roll requirements, but not an explicit ban.

Courtier's Resolve can definitely be activated in any stance- as can any other technique that doesn't require a roll. I'm also inclined to think that RAW and RAI agree in this case, given that the wording is identical to Warrior's Resolve except for the stats it affects.