Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sidescroller

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

832 profile views
  1. See? This statement right here. Range bands don't work.
  2. Welcome to L5R! I'm sure this is late, but you might need to fix range bands. Because they just don't work 😂 Every explanation of "functional" range bands I've seen is "oh, we just use it as a general guideline"--some rules *generate* specific range band information, and then other parts of the rules *rely* on range band information, but the game doesn't know how to remember range band information between its creation and its use.
  3. That benefit can be obtained with simpler (and more elegant) systems. Plus, the particular way that benefit is achieved in this system leads to silliness. That drawback is HUGE. In a 5v5 skirmish—which, IMO, any skirmish rules should be able to handle fairly well—that’s 9 range relationships that need to get re-figured every time someone moves. That’s not worth the above benefit, given that other systems handle the same benefit much more easily.
  4. Generally, my problem with the range bands system is that, since all distances are relative, a change of distance between two characters doesn't logically generate new information about the change in distance to a third character... which is what defining combat space should *do*. Alice and Bob enter the battlefield, such that Alice and Bob are three range bands apart East-West. Charlie is four range bands north of Alice. How many range bands away are Charlie and Bob? We can't actually *know*, without breaking out trigonometry or minis and string, which both defeat the purpose of narrative combat space. We can hand-wave, sure, but at that point, why bother quantifying distance at all? For more, here's the link to my step-by-step logic for why range bands don't work: And here's my link to range zones. I would word things a little differently now, but you can get the gist.
  5. See, now you've hit the thing about the system that bugs *me*: range bands. Range bands might just be the worst piece of game design I've ever seen, because they're not actually usable, except in a hand-wavy, eye-ball way. Which, at that point, there's no real need for a rule. The range bands system glaringly incompetent compared to other narrative distance mechanics, like Zones from Fate (I house-ruled range bands to be more like zones). It takes a lot of text on the page, but A) the house rule generates consistent information, that B) still uses the range band values invoked by the rules.
  6. I agree with @Avatar111's "let it ride" protocol--it's nice to have that term, and it's a natural extension of the guidelines of when to make a check. To make a check, success and failure must both be possible and meaningfully different. If a monk can spam until they burst, then success and failure aren't meaningfully different. I *might* permit spamming of a burst effect in a scene in which it affliction was contracted, as losing combat rounds to failure *is* meaningful, but once no one is fighting (or rather, once further combat checks don't impact the outcome of the scene), then the scene is over. If you think the threat of taint is severe enough, it's super easy to house rule. You could raise the TN of cleansing rite to 5 or 6; it takes a skilled monk, probably with assistants (maybe modify the assistance rules, too) (Most NPCs in the world shouldn't be rolling more than 5k2 or 6k3 (ring 2 or 3 with skill 3). For the affliction --> taint roll, instead of rolling every two weeks, roll at the end of the scene following the combat, and then in appropriate units of time after that, according to how dangerous you want it to be.
  7. Thank you! I was trying to figure out how to use a subtle insult (air) to throw some strife at someone.
  8. The beta provided an option for opp spends: for any element, you could resolve an opp from a non-opposite, non-void element for double cost (e.g. fire could use air and earth) (void could use any other element's opportunity for double cost). I'm not seeing this in the final published version. Am I missing it? Is it gone? Is it a good or bad idea?
  9. Are you interested in them being yoriki narratively, or mainly for the advancement table? You can always say that yorki must prove themselves before they receive special training. That way, they narratively have the title, but don’t get the table until it’s appropriate. You could also give them some starting XP to buy up to rank 2 and be the right rank for the table.
  10. Lol you’re right that’s what I get for not paying attention. I just saw the ‘splodie symbol first misremembered it as success. Been awhile since I thought about this game, just getting back into it 😂
  11. No you were perfectly clear, I just got sidetracked by what I thought was a question I needed to answer for myself before I could answer yours. I could see social rolls changing whether I reveal the TN pre-declaration-of-intention, though. Been awhile since I ran the beta. Can’t remember. Got a campaign of this coming up soon tho.
  12. @Kaiju according to pp. 24 & 25, we resolve opps after successes. So normal damage first (which might trigger a crit by itself), then the double-opp-spend for a crit.
  13. I’ve always outright told the PCs the TNs. I’m not saying that’s right, but here’s why: So let’s say I’m a player and I want my PC to jump a gap between two buildings. How do I gauge the difficulty before committing to the jump? That’s something I can do IRL, and intuitively my character should be able to do it as well. In other words, there must be some way I can compare my ability to the task before beginning the making-a-check procedure, beginning with declaring an intention. (RAW, there is no way to bail out of this procedure once you start). I could ask my GM how big the gap is. But that’s pretty useless on its own, because the game doesn’t translate fitness checks into distance jumped (this isn’t GURPS). So I basically need to ask “how difficult is this jump?” and then listen for verbal clues that indicate how difficult it is on the TN scale of 1-8. If the GM is consistent in their descriptions, I can figure out the TN, and they might as well have told me (there’s only so many ways to say “this is an average task” without sounding ridiculous). If the GM is *inconsistent* in their descriptions, then I cannot effectively gauge the difficulty of the jump before committing to it (which is the first step of the making-a-check procedure, which will eventually reveal the TN). So the GM might as well have told me the mechanical difficulty (say, Average, TN 2) along with the narrative difficulty (“it’s not too big a gap; most adults could probably jump it”). I might not tell them the optimal TN, specifically because there’s mechanical ways to find it out, but I can’t think of a good way to hide the normal TN while also giving the players enough information to help them decide whether to commit to action or not.
  14. Agreed. And one of the reasons I like *this* version of R&K compared to the previous L5R versions is that it generates less useless information on the success/failure axis. Like, since almost all TNs used increments of 5s, and because there's so many results possible on R&K with d10s, there's not a meaningful difference between rolling, say, a 46 and a 47. But working on a scale of 1-5 or 6 ish is much more intuitive.
  15. FWIW, this edition uses a different system than Genesys/SW
  • Create New...