Stances

[Minigiant]

I had discussions with many people and came to the thought that the additional of a stance system would solve a lot of the issues people see with weapons combat.

It could help emphasize the master of multiple combat styles that many want the fighter class to have.
By making each combat style and combat action into their own stance that could be turned on an off, the fighter can simply be given access to many stances at a faster rate to show their full mastery of weapons combat.

It could solve the multiple attack question.
A stance could be made for each type of multiple attack sequence. One could grant an additional attack a no penalty. Another could provide three attacks per round at a penalty to attack rolls. And another could simply grant bonus damage.

It could help gauge and differentiate the combat strength and skill of various classes.
Paladins, barbarian. and other warrior classes could naturally get more and stronger stances than the next tier of classes.

It could aid in creating characters that model different editions of D&D.
Fans of older edition could take simplistic stances that simply grant bonuses to damage rolls, attack rolls and armor class. Fans of the last editions could take more complicated stances that create complex effects.

The main issue is whether the many fans of D&D can agree to this.

 

[underfoot007ct]

I find this idea interesting and would not mind if a stance system, was Incorporated or optional in 5E Next. Nice.

 

[Hassassin]

I'm not opposed to stances, but I'm not sure what the problem is that they need to solve.

It could help emphasize the master of multiple combat styles that many want the fighter class to have.

The fighter can only attack with the weapons he's wielding, so why should he also have to be in a specific stance? Knowing both TWF and Sword'n'Board, you can still only use one style each round.

It could solve the multiple attack question.

Why should this be a stance instead of a feat/class ability? If so that the fighter can switch from round to round, why should this be a choice of stance instead of a choice of attack action?

It could help gauge and differentiate the combat strength and skill of various classes.
[...]
It could aid in creating characters that model different editions of D&D.

Again, why stronger/different stances instead of stronger/different feats or class abilities?

 

[delericho]

I don't think we need a particular 'stance' subsystem. Instead, stances should either just be powers (or feats, or whatever) that the Fighter can learn and use as appropriate. By the same token, though, I see absolutely no reason not to have them.

 

[harlokin]

I like the idea of stances to make non-casters more interesting without stepping on the toes of magic.

Maybe even look at the possibility of non-combat style stances (something like Posture of the Braggart Hero, Posture of the Modest Defender, Posture of the Pious Champion etc), which could be beneficial for various different social interactions.

 

[Meophist]

I like the idea of stances to make non-casters more interesting without stepping on the toes of magic.

Maybe even look at the possibility of non-combat style stances (something like Posture of the Braggart Hero, Posture of the Modest Defender, Posture of the Pious Champion etc), which could be beneficial for various different social interactions.

I'm not quite sure what the advantage is of giving certain bonuses for being in a certain "stance" as opposed to bypassing a stance system and just giving the bonuses.

 

[JamesonCourage]

My RPG uses a stance/maneuver system. There's two different stances for each physical attribute (Str, Dex, and Con), and one for each mental attribute (Int, Wis, and Cha), with each stance giving you different benefits (and all stances are themed, of course). You can only be in one stance in a time, but if you qualify for a stance (each stance has prerequisites to be in), you can use the maneuvers of that stance, whether or not you're in it.

For example, if I meet the prerequisites for Overpowering stance and the Hold the Line stance, I can enter either stance, gaining passive benefits, and I can use maneuvers from either stance (some are easy to use, others are hard). As I level up, if I meet the prerequisites for other stances (like Analytical stance), I can use those maneuvers as well, or even take that stance.

Additionally, you can mix and match stances (and maneuvers from those stances) to build different types of warriors (I'll use Hold the Line as an example). If I grab Hold the Line and Domination, I'm great at being a bodyguard. If I grab Hold the Line and Impassive, I'm a mountain that can't be moved. If I grab Hold the Line and Overpowering, I'm a big brute who can dish it out and take it.

Since there's a stance for each attribute, I can even make different types of warriors (augmented by different feats chosen, etc.). I can go Analytical for smart warriors, or Cunning for charismatic warriors. Maybe I'm Lightning Strikes and Analytical, since I study my opponents and release my fury upon them (mixing Intelligence and Dexterity). If I'm Cunning and Duelist, I'm all about leaping around the room, fooling opponents, getting myself into a situation where it's one on one, and feigning weakness/strength to gain an advantage.

There's a lot of room for dynamic options with a stance system. It might be too many options to be in the base system, though. Really, my stance system is 10 pages long (one for the stance descriptions/prerequisites, and instructions on how to use the system), and one page for each stance (less, really, since that includes art).

At any rate, I'd be all for a stance/maneuver system. You can definitely pace it so that options become more reliable as you get higher level and gain more abilities. As always, play what you like

 

[harlokin]

I'm not quite sure what the advantage is of giving certain bonuses for being in a certain "stance" as opposed to bypassing a stance system and just giving the bonuses.

Good question. I'm not sure, but I was looking for some mechanic for non-caster to compete with the "I-win buttons" charm/suggestion/ESP etc.) casters will probably end up getting for social encounters.

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

Stances are cool because they are tactical choices, like you need more damage or AC this round? Like the essentials fighters I can see stances being the fighter "thing"in 5e.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not opposed to stances, but I'm not sure what the problem is that they need to solve.



The fighter can only attack with the weapons he's wielding, so why should he also have to be in a specific stance? Knowing both TWF and Sword'n'Board, you can still only use one style each round.



Why should this be a stance instead of a feat/class ability? If so that the fighter can switch from round to round, why should this be a choice of stance instead of a choice of attack action?



Again, why stronger/different stances instead of stronger/different feats or class abilities?

1) Because I hate feats.

2) Because I hate feats. Well not really. I hate the way WotC did them. This would separate combat abilities away form proficiency, magic, and skill abilities.

3) Because feats suck.

This can be done as feats if push comes to shove but I hope the it be separated from the rest.