Honored sirs and ladies,

I am considering creating a houserule that eliminates the in-a-duel-everyone-is-always-in-range rule from page 260, and before doing so I would like to know if there is a good reason for that rule that I'm not seeing. I've done a sport version of medieval swordsmanship for 20 years, and distance control has always been an essential part of tactical maneuver even in single combats (especially when weapon reaches differ). However, I have not gamed as much as some on this forum. I therefore humbly ask: Would removing that rule harm the game somehow?

Duels would still differ from skirmishes in having the building 1-vs.-1 strife, iaijutsu rules for iai duels, and the knowledge that one can max out Strife and Fatigue to win just one fight without worrying whether your foe's buddy is flanking you.

Thank you very much.

13 hours ago, player3900306 said:

Honored sirs and ladies,

I am considering creating a houserule that eliminates the in-a-duel-everyone-is-always-in-range rule from page 260, and before doing so I would like to know if there is a good reason for that rule that I'm not seeing. I've done a sport version of medieval swordsmanship for 20 years, and distance control has always been an essential part of tactical maneuver even in single combats (especially when weapon reaches differ). However, I have not gamed as much as some on this forum. I therefore humbly ask: Would removing that rule harm the game somehow?

Duels would still differ from skirmishes in having the building 1-vs.-1 strife, iaijutsu rules for iai duels, and the knowledge that one can max out Strife and Fatigue to win just one fight without worrying whether your foe's buddy is flanking you.

Thank you very much.

it allows much more variables, like coiling serpent strike, iron forest etc. if you start to allow different weapons it can devaluate the katana a lot in duel situation if you take range into consideration.

strictly between two katana wielders, range is just another thing to track on top of staredown etc. so since they both have the same weapon, making range a non-issue is all good for the pacing of the game.

all in all, i'm personally in favor to not take range into consideration for duels and rather follow the rules as written for that. but you can open a can of worm and try it.

Ah, I understand now. I will spend more time exploring the various kata/build options before making a decision. Thank you very much.

Even with katanas only, some techs like Flowing Water Strike can make range significant if you introduce it in duels. But it’s a very special case and I feel it shifts the focus away from the specificity of duels which is the mind game and Strife management. If you want a more tactical challenge between two warriors, it might make more sense to go all the way to making it a pure skirmish...

In my opinion, rangers shouldn't be a thing in duels because if we have range shenanigans too in these types of conflicts then the already problematic pacing will tank for good.

Eliminating range could make for a more interesting duel between (Unicorn) archers, but then as someone else said, why not just make it a skirmish? Without range mattering, meaning always in range, I think it keeps tension higher because any action could be "strike", as combatants are more or less tethered together.

1 hour ago, AtoMaki said:

In my opinion, rangers shouldn't be a thing in duels because if we have range shenanigans too in these types of conflicts then the already problematic pacing will tank for good.

They shouldn't have made "resist checks" a thing 😕

it should have been some kind of static number similar to vigilance, maybe just rings?

anyway, a decent fix is to not allow opportunity spendings on resist checks, but i dont know if it would unbalance the game.

Just now, T_Kageyasu said:

Eliminating range could make for a more interesting duel between (Unicorn) archers, but then as someone else said, why not just make it a skirmish? Without range mattering, meaning always in range, I think it keeps tension higher because any action could be "strike", as combatants are more or less tethered together.

Definitely, because I can see some "coiling serpent abuses" and strife stacking cause of staredowns.

Definitely a dangerous thing to allow, balance (and pacing) wise.

14 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

They shouldn't have made "resist checks" a thing 😕

They shouldn't have shied away from making a really lethal and explosive combat system.

2 hours ago, AtoMaki said:

They shouldn't have shied away from making a really lethal and explosive combat system.

What do you mean by that?

Current system not lethal enough?

The comment about resist checks was mostly to unclog some pacing issues.

1 hour ago, Avatar111 said:

What do you mean by that?

Current system not lethal enough?

Well, it is more like the lethality curve has a tendency to run uncomfortably long. The grinding and the thinking can really bog down this game.

Personally I like the nuance that ranges offer. I think it’d make duels more interesting. Though I’m heavily biased by my huge love of the duel between the Mountain and the Red Viper in A Clash of Kong’s, where range was a big deal. I also think of my duels with my young son, who is at a horrible disadvantage due to my long reach, but if he gets in close then the tables turn.

All that said, reality had little place in an L5R game.