4 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

Case by case basis. As a GM you have a decent "knowledge" of your player so your NPC should not challenge your courtier player who's basically making it clear he is out of there!

In the case an NPC courtier is in the scene, yeah just say he will not be rolling initiative and will not take part in the conflict before rolling initiative, or he dives for cover before the fight errupts, whatever. As a GM you can narrate such things.

There are no definitive answer. My only point in all of this is that a courtier/shugenja trait should not make you immune to the challenge action in skirmishes if you are throwing fireballs around or shooting everyone with pelting arrow kata.

Nobody's saying that someone actively participating in combat should be immune to challenges for whatever reason.

The issue with keeping someone out of the scene is that you can't know what will happen, and if they do become involved you need the late arrival rule for initiative which is kind of bad (since the late arriver basically loses a round). That kind of makes sense for actual late arrivals who need to determine what's going on, but for someone who's there already it doesn't really work. Everybody died except the courtier and now they're coming for him? Chances are he'll go last in initiative after everyone else already got a free round on him. Artisan decides to get involved to help a bleeding ally? Might be that ally bleeds two more turns before he even gets to act. It also means they can't be affected/targeted by techniques, which is weird.

10 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

Nobody's saying that someone actively participating in combat should be immune to challenges for whatever reason.

The issue with keeping someone out of the scene is that you can't know what will happen, and if they do become involved you need the late arrival rule for initiative which is kind of bad (since the late arriver basically loses a round). That kind of makes sense for actual late arrivals who need to determine what's going on, but for someone who's there already it doesn't really work. Everybody died except the courtier and now they're coming for him? Chances are he'll go last in initiative after everyone else already got a free round on him. Artisan decides to get involved to help a bleeding ally? Might be that ally bleeds two more turns before he even gets to act. It also means they can't be affected/targeted by techniques, which is weird.

Then just allow them to be challenged at an honor loss (if you want).

No big deal.

8 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

Then just allow them to be challenged at an honor loss (if you want).

No big deal.

It's a game, nothing is a big deal.

My point is that just by applying the societal code, you get pretty similar results as with this rigid mechanic whenever a challenge is appropriate. When a challenge isn't appropriate the mechanic is awkward at best and dumb at worst, while applying the societal code still does what it's supposed to do (and you should IMO apply it anyway, since the setting is what it is). So why do we have this mechanic? What's the benefit?

38 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

It's a game, nothing is a big deal.

My point is that just by applying the societal code, you get pretty similar results as with this rigid mechanic whenever a challenge is appropriate. When a challenge isn't appropriate the mechanic is awkward at best and dumb at worst, while applying the societal code still does what it's supposed to do (and you should IMO apply it anyway, since the setting is what it is). So why do we have this mechanic? What's the benefit?

The "clash" mechanic?

Indeed, it needed some polish, hence the purpose of this thread.

31 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

The "clash" mechanic?

Indeed, it needed some polish, hence the purpose of this thread.

Before trying to polish a turd, why not check if it's even needed in the first place? It doesn't achieve anything worthwhile that I can see.

8 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

Before trying to polish a turd, why not check if it's even needed in the first place? It doesn't achieve anything worthwhile that I can see.

I don't mind the clashes. Sure, it makes the game much more "heroic/fantasty/manga".

But the whole rule for it is indeed in turd territory. Much of the game's rules beyond the core systems (skill/stance/strife) is honestly kind of trash... or at the very best, passable in ideas but but not really good in execution and definitely not polished enough.

I still do think that with a few more months of work, and the right people to playtest it, the game could have been very good. But unfortunately it seems the designers threw up the towel at some point, for whatever reason.

7 hours ago, nameless ronin said:

How's that work, when characters by RAW roll initiative before deciding what to do? And what if someone else decides to involve them?

The player needs to be asked: does he want the character to do anything in the coming scene? If no, then the character will become a glorified battlefield prop. Any interactions aimed at them must use the Use Skill action with the appropriate Skill and resolution. If they decide to jump in later then they will be subjected to Late Arrivals and they are free game from then on. If they get to be involved (for example, the aim of the ambush is specifically to kill the shugenja) then there is no escape, that situation is similar to the ashigaru-killing artisan in a way that being a special snowflake doesn't mean that you can just pick your fights and get away with it.

6 hours ago, AtoMaki said:

The player needs to be asked: does he want the character to do anything in the coming scene? If no, then the character will become a glorified battlefield prop. Any interactions aimed at them must use the Use Skill action with the appropriate Skill and resolution. If they decide to jump in later then they will be subjected to Late Arrivals and they are free game from then on. If they get to be involved (for example, the aim of the ambush is specifically to kill the shugenja) then there is no escape, that situation is similar to the ashigaru-killing artisan in a way that being a special snowflake doesn't mean that you can just pick your fights and get away with it.

Mechanical awkwardness aside, the player will never say he doesn't want the character not to do anything in the scene. There would be only downsides. So now we're making rules for situations that will never happen?

29 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

Mechanical awkwardness aside, the player will never say he doesn't want the character not to do anything in the scene. There would be only downsides. So now we're making rules for situations that will never happen?

as much as I like precise rulings that are simple and have wide impacts, and that I agree that a lot of rules in this game are either unnecessarily bloated or confusingly badly written, I think right now you are digging a bit too deep to find problems that don't exist... Just make it so that you can use the challenge action on whomever you want and give an honor loss to the challenger if you feel it doesn't make sense.
that will fix your problem! without any houserule!

2 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

as much as I like precise rulings that are simple and have wide impacts, and that I agree that a lot of rules in this game are either unnecessarily bloated or confusingly badly written, I think right now you are digging a bit too deep to find problems that don't exist... Just make it so that you can use the challenge action on whomever you want and give an honor loss to the challenger if you feel it doesn't make sense.
that will fix your problem! without any houserule!

This is pretty much what I've been saying all along?

6 hours ago, nameless ronin said:

Mechanical awkwardness aside, the player will never say he doesn't want the character not to do anything in the scene.

Then he shouldn't be surprised to get Clash'd. "I'm a pacifist shugenja. Just let me throw this Assist to our bushi's general direction. I'm a pacifist shugenja." won't fly.

4 hours ago, AtoMaki said:

Then he shouldn't be surprised to get Clash'd. "I'm a pacifist shugenja. Just let me throw this Assist to our bushi's general direction. I'm a pacifist shugenja." won't fly.

Does that matter? Depending on how the fight goes he's not unlikely to be attacked anyway, and whether that's a regular attack or a clash is largely immaterial.

Again, I'm in favour of everyone and anyone being a potential challenge target. I just want appropriate consequences in terms of honor and glory (which is compliant with the rules to begin with) and I think the rigid restrictions around the challenge action serve no purpose and are in some cases detrimental.

2 hours ago, nameless ronin said:

Does that matter? Depending on how the fight goes he's not unlikely to be attacked anyway, and whether that's a regular attack or a clash is largely immaterial.

Again, I'm in favour of everyone and anyone being a potential challenge target. I just want appropriate consequences in terms of honor and glory (which is compliant with the rules to begin with) and I think the rigid restrictions around the challenge action serve no purpose and are in some cases detrimental.

The challenge action is a better strike action, that the opponent can safeguard against, at a cost.

It is really powerful against prideful samurai.

Edit; it is the full package; attack, movement, defense against all but your target. Jammed in a single action.

6 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

The challenge action is a better strike action, that the opponent can safeguard against, at a cost.

It is really powerful against prideful samurai.

Edit; it is the full package; attack, movement, defense against all but your target. Jammed in a single action.

And it'd still be exactly that if you took away the rigid "must stake/forfeit this" requirements and just look at how it goes down in terms of potential breaches of bushido.

I get that it matters that this is a defined action (especially in this system, where actions aren't even allowed if they aren't listed as appropriate for the type of scene), but in a ruleset where pretty much everything else is left a lot more open it's jarring to me that the designers felt it necessary to add such strict restrictions to this mechanic in particular.

and if the monsters doesn't even have enough glory/honor to stake! is he forced to refuse ? and then all his buddies take strife and you gain a void point?

who knows!

I agree with you. Is what i'm saying. The game is a mess that would require a solid reprint with many fixes/changes. but i doubt they will do that, they can't even fix their PDF sheets that would take 15 minutes to fix and reupload.

On 3/11/2019 at 5:51 PM, Avatar111 said:

you cannot just say "because it is a courtier you cannot clash with him/her/it".
you might be able to say "because that person is not participating in the skirmish in no way whatsoever, then challenging him/her/it is not in accordance with bushido".

This. If a noble, especially a courtier or priest, pointedly doesn't draw their sword during a skirmish and lets their guards do the fighting, then that's essentially them declaring they're not a combatant. Which means you can take them prisoner or whatever but should be making at least a token effort not to stab them accidentally, and you shouldn't be challenging them during the skirmish.

On 3/12/2019 at 5:27 AM, AtoMaki said:

Likely. Or at least not involved (no Initiative check, no actions, etc). If he chooses to get involved then he is free game tho.

Exactly. Taking cover, and perhaps running over to aid a wounded comrade with a medicine check is one thing. Maybe even using shuji to encourage or command your allies, depending on how honourable the GM decides the enemy is feeling.

Drawing a sword and thwocking someone with it is quite another.

Still thinking the range 0-5 for challenge action is weird.

It really forces a "teleport" especially if the character with lower initiative issued the challenge.

And according to the range band description, range 5 is basically not even within earshot.

Should be range 4. It just makes it much cleaner. As if you allow a movement during the "clash" turn at the end of the round, it makes it range 2.

7 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

Still thinking the range 0-5 for challenge action is weird.

It really forces a "teleport" especially if the character with lower initiative issued the challenge.

And according to the range band description, range 5 is basically not even within earshot.

Should be range 4. It just makes it much cleaner. As if you allow a movement during the "clash" turn at the end of the round, it makes it range 2.

Maybe the range 5 is for challenges across the battlefield using tessen or war flags, etc. I don't see why "teleporting" keeps coming up.. a challenge is called, answered, and actions take place at the appropriate range. Do we really need an ESPN play by play leading up to combat actions? If anyone is doing anything other than getting into position, there's probably an honor loss or forfeiture on deck.

56 minutes ago, T_Kageyasu said:

Maybe the range 5 is for challenges across the battlefield using tessen or war flags, etc. I don't see why "teleporting" keeps coming up.. a challenge is called, answered, and actions take place at the appropriate range. Do we really need an ESPN play by play leading up to combat actions? If anyone is doing anything other than getting into position, there's probably an honor loss or forfeiture on deck.

easy situation:

NPC1 win initiative, shoots an arrow from range 5

PLAYER1 plays next, he is at range 5 from NPC1, he decide to use Air Stance and roll Challenge action on NPC1, keeping his opportunities to increase his TN to be hit against arrows.
Because he is nice, PLAYER1 also moves 1 range band closer to NPC1, now they are range 4 from each other.

End of round, the Clash begins, What do you do GM @T_Kageyasu ??

now, is it clearer ?

-do you say the clash doesnt happen UNTIL they are at range 2 from each others ?
-do you allow the archer to shoot an arrow during the clash at range 4 and not allow the player with the sword to retaliate?
-do you "teleport" (move, if you prefer lol) each other at range 2 from each others and use the Duel rule that says everything is in range ?

it isn't a question of ESPN play by play, the rule as is just doesn't make sense for so many situations. UNLESS you houserule a clause somewhere (like half the book to be fair).
so how do you houserule the challenge action so it works nicely in all VERY COMMON situations ?

1 hour ago, Avatar111 said:

End of round, the Clash begins, What do    you do GM 

There's no need to houserule *everything* @Avatar111

Unless they are arrow dueling at range 4 the clash doesn't begin immediately because they are not in range. As a GM I'd ask if they are taking any notable actions before getting into range. Maybe they want to epically water stance into range, or fire stance over the mooks rushing to get out of their way. If their honorless dog of an enemy starts firing arrows, I'd be fine with keeping those previous round air opportunities. If they want to cleansing breath a few rounds and wait for their opponent to walk to them, that's fine too. My point is that unless there's a compelling reason, why not fast forward to the skirmish scene? The play by play can certainly be important and pivotal to success or failure, but let that be on your players to decide. Keep the action coming unless you intentionally want to introduce mind games on the battlefield.

7 minutes ago, T_Kageyasu said:

There's no need to houserule *everything* @Avatar111

Unless they are arrow dueling at range 4 the clash doesn't begin immediat  ely because they are not in range  . As a GM I'd ask if they are taking any notable actions before getting into range. May  be they want to epically water stance into range, or fire stance over the mooks rushing to get out of their way. If their honorless dog of an enemy starts firing arrows, I'd be fine with keeping those previous round air opportunities. If they want to cleansing breath a few rounds and wait for their opponent to walk to them, that's fine too. My point is that unless there's a compelling reason, why not fast forward to the skirmish scene? The play by play can certainly be important and pivotal to success or failure, but let that be on your players to decide. Keep the action coming unless you intentionally want to introduce mind games on the battlefield.

Firstly, you just houseruled something; " Unless they are arrow dueling at range 4 the clash doesn't begin immediat  ely because they are not in range"
Because as per Duel rules, both character should move at range 2 of each other "narratively".

Secondly, if you have 4 players already in a skirmish, things are actually happening while the other characters are challenging each others.
If they are at range 5, NPC1 accept the challenge. then he needs to waste like 2 turns to "get to the other guy" because he got challenged at range 5?

Without houserules, my players are outsmarting the rules. the way to play now is to stay as far as possible and challenge an NPC at range 5. You basically "nerfed" the boss of the skirmish for 2+ rounds.

31 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

Firstly, you just houseruled     something; " Unless    they are arrow dueling at range 4 the clash doesn't begin immediat  ely because they are not in range"      
Because as per Duel rules, both ch  ar   acter should move at range 2 of each ot  he  r "narratively".  

Common sense is not a houserule. Perhaps I take a far more loose and figurative approach to this game, using Rokugani social convention to round out the supposed gaps in the mechanics.

In your scenario, I'd ask everyone what their multi round actions are and go from there. Why or how did your NPC get nerfed? Did your PC roll some amazingly hight TN courtesy or command check to force him into a non ideal situation without a counter proposal?

54 minutes ago, T_Kageyasu said:

Common sense is not a houserule. Perhaps I take a far more loose and figurative approach to this game, using Rokugani social convention to round out the supposed gaps in the mechanics.

In your scenario, I'd ask everyone what their multi round actions are and go from there. Why or how did your NPC get nerfed? Did your PC roll some amazingly hight TN courtesy or command check to force him into a non ideal situation without a counter proposal?

Because the NPC is at range 5, the PC succeeded at a tn1 command check so the NPC needs (if hes a decent fellow) to accept the challenge.

Basically, it can get tricky.

Though, your option is a valid answer; just houserule it as such, that the "narrative movement to range 2 of each other" doesn't come into play during clashes within a skirmishes so that the clash doesn't occur if participants are not within range 2 of each other (unless one or both wants to go Ranged weapon at it, which is doable).

It is a houserule though. Because reading it as is, both participants definitely "teleport" within range 2 of each other when the clash starts.

I don't know your players, but mine are big fans of clashes and use it almost every fight, both as a way of defending themselves (can't get attacked by the NPC mobs, unless they dont care about dishonoring the character that got challenged) and as a way of getting quickly to your target (narratively moving within range 2).

20 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

Because the NPC is at range 5, the PC succeeded at a tn1 command check so the NPC needs (if hes a decent fellow) to accept the challenge.

Basically, it can get tricky.

Though, your option is a valid answer; just houserule it as such, that the "narrative movement to range 2 of each other" doesn't come into play during clashes within a skirmishes so that the clash doesn't occur if participants are not within range 2 of each other (unless one or both wants to go Ranged weapon at it, which is doable).

It is a houserule though. Because reading it as is, both participants definitely "teleport" within range 2 of each other when the clash starts.

I don't know your players, but mine are big fans of clashes and use it almost every fight, both as a way of defending themselves (can't get attacked by the NPC mobs, unless they dont care about dishonoring the character that got challenged) and as a way of getting quickly to your target (narratively moving within range 2).

Sounds like you have a mechanism that works for you. Personally, I'd handle it a little differently, but that's probably because my PCs are fine with having flexible duration rounds when it makes sense. I think a little more guidance for multi round actions and TNs to get there could be beneficial, but strict or fiercely literal interpretations of rules is not my idea of leisurely recreation, but sticking to a formula is good for the table.

On 4/8/2019 at 12:47 AM, T_Kageyasu said:

Maybe the range 5 is for challenges across the battlefield using tessen or war flags, etc. I don't see why "teleporting" keeps coming up.. a challenge is called, answered, and actions take place at the appropriate range. Do we really need an ESPN play by play leading up to combat actions? If anyone is doing anything other than getting into position, there's probably an honor loss or forfeiture on deck.

Clashes make significantly more sense in Mass Battles, though. It's not really teleporting because a mass battle turn is...what....maybe up to an hour or two? Long enough for a formed-up army to stage a major assault on and sieze a fortified position, anyway.

During this period, there's more than enough time for a single individual to get anywhere they like on a battlefield and engage in a quick sparring match with an enemy hero. Indeed it's a very valuable action to have, because the options for actually killing commanders are otherwise very limited (as they should be; massed armies aren't great at taking out one specific individual amongst the enemy force), and it lets a super-competent duellist with command 0, tactics 0 actually do what their character would want to do on a battlefield - ride off looking for somone important to insert several feet of pointy metal into.

Where I wasn't convinced it was so necessary was skirmishes.