I was browsing the facebook for L5R and one of the moderator was suggesting to modify the Incapacited condition. Changing it to a +2TN to actions that requires a check instead of not being able to perform actions with a check.

The idea is interesting to me as it makes the combat more fluid. A character can still act if incapacitated so they are not simply a punching bag. That allows for more brutal fights that don't always end up with the choice of killing or not killing while the opponent is helpless.
I am guessing that most of the time, the incapacitated opponent would give up anyway. But the fact that they can still act, with a steep TN increase, while fully knowing that the next attack on them is a critical hit, seems like much more intense to me than the current rule. It is a small change which alter the feel of the gameplay a lot.

opinions?

Oh, that's interesting!

I like that it means you're killing people on their feet. I also like that it allows for the cinematic kinds of scenes where someone is beaten near to death but manages to eek out a victory anyhow. A tradeoff might be that it makes combat even less lethal though (since you can run away faster or potentially take actions better than Calming Breath to remove fatigue). But actually maybe that's a perk, if it makes it easier to save important NPCs you'd like to use again.

What if being Incapacitated meant the character was automatically Dazed and Disoriented? Still increases TNs by 2, but also allows for techniques that use those conditions to trigger?

This seems like it would slightly favor low Endurance characters, which I think I'm okay with.

12 minutes ago, MonCalamariAgainstDrunkDriving said:

Oh, that's interesting!

I like that it means you're killing people on their feet. I also like that it allows for the cinematic kinds of scenes where someone is beaten near to death but manages to eek out a victory anyhow. A tradeoff might be that it makes combat even less lethal though (since you can run away faster or potentially take actions better than Calming Breath to remove fatigue). But actually maybe that's a perk, if it makes it easier to save important NPCs you'd like to use again.

What if being Incapacitated meant the character was automatically Dazed and Disoriented? Still increases TNs by 2, but also allows for techniques that use those conditions to trigger?

This seems like it would slightly favor low Endurance characters, which I think I'm okay with.

automatically become Dazed and Disoriented ? Nice, clean.
The "cannot do actions with checks" would need to be moved to the Unconscious condition also.

What I like most about his idea is that it still puts the character in a very dangerous state, but allows for a last breath effort (albeit a very risky one). Under the current system, once you are incapacitated (and that is especially true for NPC adversaries) there is nothing much they can do and its all about if the PC wants to kill them or not. But it is kind of anti-climactic because they are not wounded at all.

anyway, just though this guy's Idea was something to think about. It seems to remove the bit of "jam" that happens with the Incapacitated condition at the moment.

and why would it favor low endurance characters ? it favors everyone equally, no ?

My assumption is that low Endurance characters become Incapacitated more often.

2 minutes ago, MonCalamariAgainstDrunkDriving said:

My assumption is that low Endurance characters become Incapacitated more often.

oh, ok.

well overall I think it isn't as much as for "buffs" as that it improves the flow of the combat a LOT.
under current rules, a lots of fights end up with an adversary 5 or 6 fatigue over his endurance, but without any wound at all, and then its up to the PC to give them a killing blow. and that feels AWFUL because the opponent is not a threat anymore, he is just waiting to be cut in half.

with the guy's rule, the opponent can "still" be a threat. so incapacitated state doesn't have this weird vibe of feeling like hitting an already dead horse.
though, it doesn't change "that much" because as I see it, an incapacitated opponent would probably surrender anyway.

for minions, it stays the same as they don't have incapacitated states anyway.

the rule tweak also allows adversaries to "fight to the death" which was impossible under the reglar rules unless they took like 5 rounds of calming breath.

Initially upon reading this I’m unenthusiastic. I rather like fatigue as “hit points” that being the fight to and end. I also think that battles can become a slog in 5E, especially when armored samurai fight with katana (since the armor largely negates the katana damage).

However, I’d try it. I’m not against it.

4 minutes ago, AndyDay303 said:

Initially upon reading this I’m unenthusiastic. I rather like fatigue as “hit points” that being the fight to and end. I also think that battles can become a slog in 5E, especially when armored samurai fight with katana (since the armor largely negates the katana damage).

However, I’d try it. I’m not against it.

It doesn't really change the rules, it just help with the rythm of the combats.

under the rules as written, the incapacitated adversary can only take calming breath or surrender. But this is so anti-climactic as he is not wounded at all, just out of breath. So all combats end up with the PC having the choice to kill a helpless unwounded target or not. Which just feels really bad...

with the rule tweak, the PC still have the same choice, but the NPC is not "helpless" anymore, and that is a HUGE difference as it add TON of narrative options.

anyway, I will 100% try it.

7 minutes ago, AndyDay303 said:

Initially upon reading this I’m unenthusiastic. I rather like fatigue as “hit points” that being the fight to and end. I also think that battles can become a slog in 5E, especially when armored samurai fight with katana (since the armor largely negates the katana damage).

However, I’d try it. I’m not against it.

about armor resisting damage, you really need to use Fire stance, once you get a bit higher skill/ring, this can become devastating.
or, use critical hit to damage and destroy their armor.

armor is mostly an issue at rank 1 when the players have low ring/skill.

Id point out that there are certain effects that allow actions while incap, for example, the boar profile has an ability that allows it to continue attacking while incap.

Drawing back on older versions, the various equivalent conditions used to allow an action if you spend a void point, with an automatic raise required, or increasing the TN, depending on edition. I think that could be allowed?

One of the other reasons I wouldn't generally allow it though, its got a possible spam. oh, i can act, but with a negative to my needed tn. well, i fail my attack, but hey, i was in water, here's an opportunity, remove a fatigue, boom, im not incap anymore!

27 minutes ago, Scrivener Spills said:

One of the other reasons I wouldn't generally allow it though, its got a possible spam. oh, i can act, but with a negative to my needed tn. well, i fail my attack, but hey, i was in water, here's an opportunity, remove a fatigue, boom, im not incap anymore!

Remove one fatigue in water is no big deal. Like what ? ok you are not incapacitated anymore and will get hit next round for 5+ damage and will go DEEP into Incapacitated.

But overall, yes, opportunities could be an issue. It is definitely something to consider.

Though, in the worst case, it can make combat like one round longer ? And again, it doesn't change anything for minions, they explode once incapacitated anyway.

For players, it allows them to take a chance instead of just sitting there and use calming breath. But, it puts them in the "danger zone".

I think the idea overall is that combat feels very lackluster vs Adversaries. Because most of the time you bring them to Incapacitated but they are otherwise not wounded at all, and it becomes a bit stale/simple to just "decide to kill them or not".
It fails to represent brutal fighting in which both opponents are fighting to the death. As once one opponent is incapacitated for like 3+ rounds, it becomes a joke with a "choice of killing or not".
Basically, combat never ends on a deadly blow unless the opponent was already Incapacitated and inoffensive.


Is it worth it to extend combat by maybe, at maximum 1 round, to have the possibility of that feeling?
That is the question to be asked I think (or is there any other way to achieve this narrative result without changing too much the rules).

2 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

It doesn't really change the rules, it just help with the rythm of the combats.

under the rules as written, the incapacitated adversary can only take calming breath or surrender. But this is so anti-climactic as he is not wounded at all, just out of breath. So all combats end up with the PC having the choice to kill a helpless unwounded target or not. Which just feels really bad...

with the rule tweak, the PC still have the same choice, but the NPC is not "helpless" anymore, and that is a HUGE difference as it add TON of narrative options.

anyway, I will 100% try it.

I’m with you. The flow of prisoners into my PCs grasp has been highly frustrating for them. This would help resolve that.

Now, one could also try and handle the issue through pure narration. In action fantasy, it is super common for a characters defenses to get smashed, and they are then smote. Narrate your NPCs incapacitation as “he reels back from your last blow, exhausted, but begins bringing his sword back up to fighting position...”

for probably 15 sessions I’ve simply been using the all NPCS with the Minion rules. For particularly tough villains I give them more vitality, and apply wounds as appropriate. It’s worked wonders for our game.

If incapacitation is a bad thing, perhaps allow an automatic coup-de-grace when a character inflicts incapacitation on somebody?

I think allowing actions at a penalty while incapacitated would work just fine to solve your issue. It just might drag a conflict out.

1 hour ago, Scrivener Spills said:

Drawing back on older versions, the various equivalent conditions used to allow an action if you spend a void point, with an automatic raise required, or increasing the TN, depending on edition. I think that could be allowed?

This would also work. Though it’s really expensive and encourages hoarding of Void points.

I also played with the minion rules until now.

It works well, but again, you don't need to wound the opponent to decisively win, just need to put him incapacitated. It just lacks a bit of cinematic flair. And hitting a defenseless and harmless incapacitated opponent is not super epic.

I just thought his rule was cool. Its not a balance thing, it just makes the fight more badass.

You can still just put the opponent incapacitated and play it full on compassion as under the core rules, but it also gives a little bit more "tension" in doing so as an opponent with nothing to lose could still try to hit you (not that any opponent caring for its life would automatically do it anyway, and at +2tn too..) and then probably miss and then you finish them off with a crit. Which is really cinematic and feels very much samurai drama style. Something that is currently lacking in the Incapacitated condition which is very "stale".

Is it the right way to do it? Is it abusable? That is what I wonder. But I thought his idea was pretty darn cool.

4 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

about armor resisting damage, you really need to use Fire stance, once you get a bit higher skill/ring, this can become devastating.
or, use critical hit to damage and destroy their armor.

armor is mostly an issue at rank 1 when the players have low ring/skill.

Wait a minute! You said high level play is all about HPS. Now you’re saying fire = fatiguing then out. Those are mutually exclusive! You can’t have it both ways buddy!

1 hour ago, AndyDay303 said:

Wait a minute! You said high level play is all about HPS. Now you’re saying fire = fatiguing then out. Those are mutually exclusive! You can’t have it both ways buddy!

Hps works fine too. If you have it, that is what you should use. I'm merely saying that armor lose its value the more skilled the pc/npc gets. So don't be too worried about how armor is good! it is mostly true only at low ranks.

So if you’re incapacitated and take a hit, do you still become KO’d?

7 minutes ago, AndyDay303 said:

So if you’re incapacitated and take a hit, do you still become KO’d?

yes. everything is exactly as the incapacited rule aside that instead of "cannot perform actions that requires a check", you can, but at +2TN.

we tried it for one session only so far, but it is really good. once you are incapacitated you have things to do, and IF you decide to keep fighting at +2TN, and not surrender, then for sure you will take the next auto-crit KO attack.

+2TN is also quite the hefty penalty. Also, don't forget if you are dazed, or disoritented, then you are effectively at +4TN! also, if you are bleeding, well, too bad for you because you cannot keep any die with strife on it otherwise you take a critical strike KO from your bleeding condition.

honestly, it feels awesome and it removes the weird "stalling" that happened with the incapacitated condition as written. It is more fun for the players but also for the story, no joke.

This would oddly allow you to still move 2 range bands in Water, or be just as fine with assistance.

2 hours ago, Chilitoke said:

This would oddly allow you to still move 2 range bands in Water, or be just as fine with assistance.

Nothing odd at all.

And no, not just as fine. You are still at +2tn. If someone wants to assist you, so be it.

Next hit you take is a crit and you fall unconscious. If you are also bleeding you might as well not even attempt any roll also. And if someone attacks you and use 2opo to crit? Well you are probably dead.

The idea is that incapacitated state is boring. Both for NPC and PC (unless you have a heal spell I guess...).

This removes that boring state and just puts you one step away from a real nasty state, with a real wound.

Otherwise the game always end up with people out of breath but no wounds. (But obviously everybody narrates it that there is a wound because otherwise it doesn't make sense).

With the rule, once you go KO, you will have a wound.

The only purpose of the rule is to keep the fight edgy until the very last moment. But most probably, an incapacitated opponent should surrender, it is way too risky to keep fighting. But the fact that you can, changes everything.

Edit; The idea that your stance could also lose its bonus effect when incapacitated is something that is considerable though. I will try it.

Edit2; under the core rule you can also move 2 range bands with water stance while incapacitated. So I guess the core rules are "odd" too.

It was meant as the other way around, the incaptee, could do the assist as this is a non roll action.

re: edit 2: Can you does incap not prevent all actions or is it just roll actions?

7 minutes ago, Chilitoke said:

It was meant as the other way around, the incaptee, could do the assist as this is a non roll action.

re: edit 2: Can you does incap not prevent all actions or is it just roll actions?

Under the core rules, incapacitated only prevent actions that requires a roll.

The only difference here is that you can still perform a rolled action, but at +2tn.

All the other parts of the incapacitated condition remains; cannot defend, next crit puts you unconscious.

The difference is subtle, but it makes the narrative of the combat more fun.