Kenshinzen are FUN! and broke.

My interpretation (willfully made so the problem goes away): "in that round" applies to making a single attack, not to every enemy within 5'. Moreover, if "in that round" doesn't apply to making a single attack this technique becomes ridiculously broken.

The biggest thing we have to go with is that this Technique refers to a single attack. I have tryed to argue with people before saying that this is ONE single attack, meaning ONE attack roll, but I have run into some conflicting views in the past. If it is ruled that it can only be one single attack roll then it woukdn't matter if you were within 5' of everyone in the world during your round because they would still have to be within range when you make your attack.

The biggest thing we have to go with is that this Technique refers to a single attack. I have tryed to argue with people before saying that this is ONE single attack, meaning ONE attack roll, but I have run into some conflicting views in the past. How? They tech explicitly states: “You make a single attack roll” If it is ruled that it can only be one single attack roll… It doesn’t have to be “ruled” to be a single attack roll. The techs very clearly states that it is a single attack roll. People are too obsessed with the “5’ of you in the round” text and fault o read the entire tech. …then it woukdn't matter if you were within 5' of everyone in the world during your round because they would still have to be within range when you make your attack. This is precisely my point.

The biggest thing we have to go with is that this Technique refers to a single attack. I have tryed to argue with people before saying that this is ONE single attack, meaning ONE attack roll, but I have run into some conflicting views in the past. How? They tech explicitly states: “You make a single attack roll”I missed that. Cool. :D There is no problem then as the opponents would still have to be able to be reached by the attack. The issue I was running into before was that "make a single attack against every opponent..." could also mean that you get to make 1 attack versus every opponent that you can hit but they are seperate attacks. The fact that the technique explicitly states that you only make a total of 1 attack that just happens to be applied to multiple opponents, solves this issue, and backs up my original stance that the words "in that round' at the end of the second sentence was a typo that goit through editing.

What's the mechanic for "fly by" attacks? I was under the impression that movement ant attacking were distinctly seperate things, so attacking while moving was verboten. You can move and attack, attack and move, but can you move, attack, move in the same round? That seems to be the crux of this situation. And what about the Miramoto R4 ability? If you kill your opponent with a sword strike you get another attack. So long as you kill,kill,kill you can mow down ashigaru like they are going out of style if you can attack while moving.

... the words "in that round' at the end of the second sentence was a typo that goit through editing. Not a typo, just awkwardly placed - it's absolutely necessary to specify when you make that single attack, namely "in that round". What's the mechanic for "fly by" attacks? Moving is not a specific action, which you have to finish before you can make another action. You can split up your movement as much as you want, doing actions in between.

I missed that. Cool. :D There is no problem then as the opponents would still have to be able to be reached by the attack. The issue I was running into before was that "make a single attack against every opponent..." could also mean that you get to make 1 attack versus every opponent that you can hit but they are seperate attacks. Right. People have tried to rules lawyer that part of the tech without looking at the entire tech. What's the mechanic for "fly by" attacks? I was under the impression that movement ant attacking were distinctly seperate things, so attacking while moving was verboten. You can move and attack, attack and move, but can you move, attack, move in the same round? That seems to be the crux of this situation. Using d20 analogy to try to clarify d10 rules is pointless. Just because something holds true in d20 does not mean the same holds true in d10. In fact this very issue cause major problem with people thinking that all non-simple actions (Move equivalent actions) are a subset of the Complex Action (Standard action), which is not true. Leave d20 out of it. And what about the Miramoto R4 ability? If you kill your opponent with a sword strike you get another attack. So long as you kill,kill,kill you can mow down ashigaru like they are going out of style if you can attack while moving. What about it? This is a different technique and the Mirumoto Rank 4 has you make multiple attack rolls. It is different from the Kenshinzen is pretty much every way.

"You may forego all of your normal attacks in a combat round to instead deliver a single attack to every enemy within 5' of you in that round. You make a single attack roll for this special maneuver, and compare it to each opponent's TNtbH." (page 8, 4 Winds) I think that the "Obvious Stupidity" rule is the best way to justify the sane interpretation. As far as the RAW is concerned, there isn't any constraint the single attack couldn't hit every opponent that was within 5' of you in that round. This is because the technique already tells you that your single attack roll can hit more than one opponent, which is normally illegal. And since the technique isn't explicit in this regard when you apply the "every enemy within 5' of you in that round," the ambigious wording can lead to some wild interpretations. The wild interpretations are realistically spurious as a weapon couldn't reach opponents within 5' of you, but this is the same loophole that allows for Moto Bushi to dual wield either two no-dachi or two yumi. These are ridiculous circumstances, but certainly not illegal by the RAW. I would leave this one to GMs and just ignore it as far as ruling what is correct and not.

where does it say you can't attack whilst moving? This is also a D20 holdover. You can move and attack as far as I can tell. The separation of attack and move is purely a D20 phenomenon.

where does it say you can't attack whilst moving? This is also a D20 holdover. You can move and attack as far as I can tell. The separation of attack and move is purely a D20 phenomenon. Even if you can (which is another debate), all your targets are not in range of a single melee attack at once.

Even if you can (which is another debate), all your targets are not in range of a single melee attack at once. But that is debatable in the RAW whether there is a range for a melee attacks. It's nuts, but melee attacks don't have any listed range and such could be anything. By our usual association with melee attacks, we consider it to be the length of the weapon. Even in that case it's still hard to figure what we consider to be a single melee attack. If one wants an anime style attack (like from Kenshin), Togashi Shinijutsu's point makes sense. However, if we are talking real combat, then it would most certainly not be the case. Unfortunately, some of the techniques and abilties in the game defy normal logic.

Even if you can (which is another debate), all your targets are not in range of a single melee attack at once. But that is debatable in the RAW whether there is a range for a melee attacks. It's nuts, but melee attacks don't have any listed range and such could be anything. No. Unless the rules say you can do something, you can't. It is not the case that if the rules don't say something, that it can be anything. The rules do not say that Bushi cannot just do 10k10 damage to any one target as a simple action, but that doesn't allow them to do that. Hell why don’t we augue that arrows can shoot through 300’ of solid stone because no barrier limitation is mentioned on range attacks? Hell, no temporal limitation is mentioned, so I can shoot people 5 minute in the future or even people 5 minutes in the past, through 300' of solid stone. A certain amount a common sense has to apply or REALLY technical rules will just piss people off. Fortunately, I am can make rulings if people want to argue that melee attack have a range. However, since Range attacks specify a range and melee attacks do not, melee attack must therefore have no range. By our usual association with melee attacks, we consider it to be the length of the weapon. Even in that case it's still hard to figure what we consider to be a single melee attack. If one wants an anime style attack (like from Kenshin), Togashi Shinijutsu's point makes sense. However, if we are talking real combat, then it would most certainly not be the case. Unfortunately, some of the techniques and abilties in the game defy normal logic. Fine. I'll make a ruling on Melee attack giving it a 5' range or so and clarify that when the Rank 3 Kenshizen uses their tech, they only attack the opponents 5' of them when the make the roll.

where does it say you can't attack whilst moving? This is also a D20 holdover. You can move and attack as far as I can tell. The separation of attack and move is purely a D20 phenomenon. Even if you can (which is another debate), all your targets are not in range of a single melee attack at once. they don't need to be. You may forego all of your normal attacks in a combat round to instead deliver a single attack to every enemy within 5' of you in that round. You make a single attack roll for this special maneuver, and compare it to each opponent's TNtbH. The clause at the end "..within 5' of you in that round." is the problem sentence. It doesn't stop at "within 5' of you", thus implying that it is not an area defined at the time of attack. Following this is "in that round". This gives us a clear time at which the area is defined. Rewording this into an if/then statement: If an enemy is within 5' of you in that round, then they are an eligible target for this attack. What the Devs might have wanted was: "You may forego all of your normal attacks in a combat round to instead deliver a single attack to every enemy within 5' of you at the time of your attack. You make a single attack roll for this special maneuver, and compare it to each opponent's TNtbH." But that is not what they delivered.

Fine. I'll make a ruling on Melee attack giving it a 5' range or so and clarify that when the Rank 3 Kenshizen uses their tech, they only attack the opponents 5' of them when the make the roll. Ogre Bushi Advanced School states a range of 10'. Humans can join this school. Where does that leave it? I prefer it to be the length of the weapon. Kenshinzen 3 may be busted, but it is hard to get to. Sure, they can mow down a bunch of troops, not too many for the average Kenshinzen, and the Mirumoto of similar rank can also mow down around 10 or so. I think it is rather fitting that it is the same effect but from opposite ends.

So then this tech can also attack through walls because it doesn’t say that they have to be 5’ in a clear unobstructed path. In fact the ranged attack action itself doesn’t require a clear line of effect ether. It can also attack an opponent 2000 miles away who was at one time 5’ on you at some time in the round. Hell it can attack ANYONE at all who MIGHT be 5’ of you at sometime the round after you take your action requiring precognition to know who will be 5’ of you all during the round.

View Full Version: Kenshinzen are FUN! and broke.