I can't speak for him, but its not the stances themselves, per se, but rather their exclusivity that sparked my initial negative reaction.
Once upon a time, HERO had a book called Ultimate Martial Artist for its 4Ed rules. It detailed 20+ martial arts maneuvers broken down by their effects, each costing 3-6 build points. The GM could arrange them into package deals which- along with certain other skills- represented particular martial arts styles. You could even have a given form be able to use all, some, or none of its maneuvers with weapons.
That book also included rules for importing those maneuvers into GURPS, "level based systems" and other RPGs.
(Yes, that was a non-trademark infringing way of saying D&D...at the time, 2Ed.)
I did much the same for 3.X, but my game group is too conservative to use them.
But unlike ToB stances (or the 4Ed powers they eventually inspired) which are linked to specific ToB classes, the maneuvers were open to any PC who took martial arts.
IOW, you could have a Wizard who studied Shao Lin Kung Fu and knew how to do Flying Kicks or use his staff to do sweeps- effectively. Your Cleric could know Capoira. Your Scout could know Savate.
Instead, ToB takes whatever goodness the martial stances may offer the game and lock them up with particular classes. They could just as easily have used ToB to present a revised combat system for all classes modified along the lines of HERO's.
That's 4Ed, right? Nope- 4Ed locks particular martial maneuvers into particular classes. Meanwhile, under the modified HERO system, any PC could learn any maneuver. Instead of your Cleric learning Capoira, he could learn Savate. Or everyone in the party could learn Kung Fu...
(cue the music)
"Everybody was kung-fu fightin!"
Once upon a time, HERO had a book called Ultimate Martial Artist for its 4Ed rules. It detailed 20+ martial arts maneuvers broken down by their effects, each costing 3-6 build points. The GM could arrange them into package deals which- along with certain other skills- represented particular martial arts styles. You could even have a given form be able to use all, some, or none of its maneuvers with weapons.
That book also included rules for importing those maneuvers into GURPS, "level based systems" and other RPGs.
(Yes, that was a non-trademark infringing way of saying D&D...at the time, 2Ed.)
I did much the same for 3.X, but my game group is too conservative to use them.
But unlike ToB stances (or the 4Ed powers they eventually inspired) which are linked to specific ToB classes, the maneuvers were open to any PC who took martial arts.
IOW, you could have a Wizard who studied Shao Lin Kung Fu and knew how to do Flying Kicks or use his staff to do sweeps- effectively. Your Cleric could know Capoira. Your Scout could know Savate.
Instead, ToB takes whatever goodness the martial stances may offer the game and lock them up with particular classes. They could just as easily have used ToB to present a revised combat system for all classes modified along the lines of HERO's.
That's 4Ed, right? Nope- 4Ed locks particular martial maneuvers into particular classes. Meanwhile, under the modified HERO system, any PC could learn any maneuver. Instead of your Cleric learning Capoira, he could learn Savate. Or everyone in the party could learn Kung Fu...
(cue the music)
"Everybody was kung-fu fightin!"
Last edited: